The main legal point established in the judgment is that the manner in which the enquiry was conducted must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and procedural irregularities can invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.

1. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.7.2003 addressed to the first respondent, the consequential proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.7.2003 and the subsequent order passed by the first respondent dated 24.7.2003, dismissing the petitioner from the services of the first respondent/Food Corporation of India.

2.1. The writ petitioner has joined in the services of the first respondent/Corporation as Technical Assistant (Analyser) on 30.9.1965 and was promoted as Assistant Manager (Quality Control) in the year 1977. On his application, the petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Manager (Administration) in the year 1986 and was promoted as Joint Manager in the year 1993 and in the year 2001, he was promoted as Manager, which post is equivalent to the post of Deputy Zonal Manager, governing the southern States, having office at Chennai.

2.2. The petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 28.2.2003, which was subsequently amended on 28.4.2003. The charges relate to the purchase of Aluminium Phosphide and as to whether the purchase was under the running rate contract and also about the calling for fresh tender, apart from the method of ascertaining the quality of purchased items. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 17.4.2003 denying the charges. Six articles of charges were framed and the Enquiry Officer, in the enquiry conducted, in which the management has examined only one witness even though five witnesses were cited, has concluded that charges under articles 1, 3 and 5 are not proved and charges under articles 2, 4 and 6 are proved.

2.3. It is stated that after the report of the Enquiry Officer was received, the first respondent has sent a communication to the second respondent on 9.7.2003 seeking its approval to dismiss the petitioner and it is stated that the second respondent has granted such approval on 14.7.2003, without giving opportunity to the petitioner. On 17.7.2003, the first respondent has issued a second show cause notice along with the report of the Enquiry Officer seeking comments of the petitioner for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges concluded as not proved, by also enclosing the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 14.7.2003, however without supplying the letter of the first respondent dated 9.7.2003 addressed to the second respondent seeking approval of the proposed action of dismissal. It is stated that even the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 14.7.2003 was given in the form of a xerox copy.

2.4. It is stated that the petitioner has ultimately submitted his explanation on 20.7.2003 and thereafter, the first respondent has passed the impugned order of dismissal on 24.7.2003, seven days prior to the date of superannuation of the petitioner, viz., 31.7.2003. The impugned proceedings are challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, including:

(i) that the conduct of the first respondent in seeking approval from the second respondent for dismissing the petitioner is alien to the service regulations;

(ii) that the report of the Enquiry Officer ought to have been submitted to the petitioner at the first instance asking his comments for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges concluded as not proved by the Enquiry Officer, viz., charges under Articles 1, 3 and 5, which has not been done;

(iii) that even if the second respondent has no role to play in respect of the disciplinary action to be taken against the petitioner by the first respondent, the second respondent ought to have put the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, which is the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice;

(iv) that the enquiry proceedings are not in conformity with the statutory requirements, especially when the Enquiry Officer himself is a peer, viz., he is a Manager from the Personnel and Establishment Divisio