The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary authorities must act fairly and in accordance with the applicable rules. Non-cooperation and deliberate non-compliance with transfer orders can impact the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent made in No.6/1/Ms/2005 D&A dated 30.06.2008 which is confirmed in an appeal by the first respondent made in No.6/1/MS/2005-D&A/Appeal dated 04.09.2017 and quash both the orders and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on par with my colleagues as in the original seniority list with all monetary and service benefits.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in No.6/1/Ms/2005 D&A dated 30.06.2008, which has been subsequently confirmed in appeal on the file of the 1st respondent in No.6/1/MS/2005-D&A/Appeal dated 04.09.2017 and quash both the said orders and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on par with colleagues as in the original seniority list, together with all monetary and service benefits.

2. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent Corporation on 06.02.1985. He has completed B.Tech and M.Tech from IIT,Delhi. Initially, the petitioner joined the respondent Corporation at Kolkatta and subsequently he was transferred to Chennai on April 1998 where he was promoted as Manager (IE) in the year 1999. In 1999, the petitioner was transferred to Dehradun on the recommendation of the then G.M (P&A) to head the SAP project. Despite the petitioner''s name not being there for consideration for transfer at that point of time, the petitioner convinced the G.M (P&A) that he could better serve in the region where his assistance would be needed more rather than in Dehradun. He also met the Director (HR) and sought for cancelling the decision to transfer him.

3. According to the petitioner instead of cancellation of the transfer, a decision was taken to defer it, for the time being and the petitioner was posted to Baroda in the following year. Further contention of the Writ Petitioner is that on 18.06.2001, though he was very much available in office, his room was broken open and sealed at about 06.30 p.m and he was denied entry into the office thereafter. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet in 2005 after a lapse of four years enclosing a copy of the relieving order dated 04.05.2001. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said relieving order was not served earlier on the Writ Petitioner. According to the Writ Petitioner their action is vindictive and predetermined. The charges levelled against the petitioner was that:

(i) he was unauthorisedly absent from duty at Vadodra from 16.05.2001 onwards;

(ii) he did not obey the lawful orders of the superiors; he attempted to bring political influence in respect of his posting;

(iii) he attempted to cause damage to the work process at Chennai office by keeping his table drawers and cupboards locked and also his computer locked with password after being relieved from Chennai;

(v) he made a false statement vide letter dated 28.11.2001 that he was attending office at Chennai after being relieved from Chennai;

(vi) he unauthorisedly occupying office accommodation at Chennai with effect from 16.07.2001 despite being relieved.

4. The petitioner gave his explanation to the said charges. The respondent Corporation appointed an Enquiry Officer for conducting domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer, according to the petitioner was biased and did not consider the genuine request of the petitioner. Witnesses were examined at Kolkatta or outside of Chennai and only few witnesses alone were examined at Chennai. However, admittedly the enquiry officer held that charge four was not proved sufficiently and held charges 1,2,3,5 and 6 as proved. The Di