Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 1700
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
K. Jayakodi
Versus
The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others
Writ Petition No.22400 of 2004
Decided On : 11-06-2007
For the Petitioner:N. Chandra Raj, Advocate. For the Respondents:
K. Kannan, SCGSC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate forum for adjudicating employment disputes involving Telecom Department employees is the Central Administrative Tribunal, and not the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Misappropriation - Employment Dispute - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Article 226, Article 226] - The court dismissed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the matter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Telecom Department, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order of dismissal from service and compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's remedy was only before the Central Administrative Tribunal and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the matter.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appropriate forum for adjudicating the petitioner's grievance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while BSNL is a Corporation and the Writ Petition can be entertained by the court, the impugned proceedings reached finality when the petitioner was an employee of the Telecom Department. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is the competent forum, to agitate his grievance.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the matter.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to his proceedings in No.X2/punishment/KJ/2000-02/35, dated 23.04.2002, as confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent in No.X3/appeal/DE Arni/2000-2003/9/dated 26. 2002 and modified by the 1st respondent in No.DIS/37/121/2002, dated 02.04.2004, and quash the same.)
Petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on 06.03.1982. He was promoted as Lineman on 110. 1984 and was later made as Store Lineman with effect from 1993. While functioning as Store Lineman, he was served with a Memo on 29.02.1996 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, asking for his explanation for the shortage of items in stores. By reply-dated 05.03.1996, the petitioner denied the contents of the memo. On 06.03.1996, he was placed under suspension. On 15.07.1996, a Charge Memo was served on him, regarding misappropriation of stores. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges and, by a report, dated 14.03.2002, the Inquiry Officer found all the three charges levelled against the petitioner, as proved.
2. Based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, namely, third respondent herein imposed an order of dismissal from service on 23.04.2002, which was confirmed in appeal by the second respondent on 21.06.2002. Thereafter, in the revision petition, dated 15.07.2002, preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent, the order of dismissal was modified into one of compulsory retirement, vide order-dated 02.04.2004.
3. Aggrieved over the said orders of respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
.4. Respondents filed a counter, stating, that while functioning as Store Lineman from 15.07.1993 to 06.03.1996, the petitioner misappropriated the stores of SDOT, Arni, worth Rs.5,43,674/-, by removing them without proper sanction. He also misappropriated the stores by not bringing the same worth Rs.1,58,118/-issued by SDOT, Vellore, to SDOT, Arni, in addition to making false entries in the stores issue slips, issued by the SDOT, Arni, worth Rs.70,528/-, and since the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service initially and, thereafter, made to retire compulsorily and, therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner had sought for certain documents to substantiate his claim, they were not afforded to the petitioner and mere production of certain documents does not amount to proof and the same has to be proved by witnesses, which is not done in this case. The learned counsel would further contend that though the petitioner requested the Inquiry Officer to permit him to examine the three additional witnesses, the same was rejected and he was not given a reasonable opportunity, which is violative of the principles of natural justice, and he was made a scapegoat to save the skin of his superiors, and, therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the contention of the petitioner that he sought for certain documents to substantiate his claim is not true, as he has not asked for any documents in his reply, dated 16.08.1996, to the charge sheet; in the hearing held on 06.06.2001, the petitioner neither objected to the introduction of the documents, when they were produced by the Presenting Officer, nor raised any objection to the genuineness of the same and hence they have been admitted as State Exhibits; the defence witnesses, requisitioned by the petitioner, were allowed by the Inquiry Officer and examined during the enquiry held on 07.06.2001 and the demand for allowing three more defence witnesses was made only after the closure of the case of the prosecution side and hence it was turned down by the Inquiry Officer, for which the reas
