Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANOJ MISRA, ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, JJ.
Neelu Dwivedi - Appellant
Versus
Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India And 4 Others - Respondents
Special Appeal Defective No. 202 of 2021
Decided On : 16-07-2021
Service Law - Harass petitioner by raising stale - Departmental inquiry - Seeking direction upon respondents not to take coercive action against her pursuant to said charge-sheets - Whether first charge-sheet issued to the appellant is liable to be quashed on ground of delay; lack of jurisdiction; and on principle of estoppel and acquiescence - Whether second charge-sheet is liable to be quashed for it being a mere extension of first and on ground that it fails to disclose an act of misconduct qua present employer (respondent herein) - Whether third, fourth and fifth charge-sheets are liable to be quashed on ground of delay as well as mala fides, as alleged?
Finding of the Court: Holding an inquiry after 20 years of appointment, on that ground, particularly, when we find that requirement of having work experience as mentioned in advertisement was relaxable, would be seriously prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. In our view, employer who had all material in its possession and was free not to select the appellant, is now estopped from questioning the appellant’s eligibility on that count - Employer who had all material in its possession and was free not to select the appellant, is now estopped from questioning - Second charge-sheet i.e. also liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed. The finding to the contrary recorded by learned single judge is set aside - Appropriate course for petitioner is to take all such pleas in disciplinary proceedings. We are, thus, in agreement, with view of learned Single Judge in that regard and we therefore affirm the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge to that extent - Order of suspension was passed in contemplation of inquiry without referring to misconduct. As five charge-sheets were drawn, out of which, two have been quashed by us, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority would have to consider whether in light of charges mentioned in third, fourth and fifth charge-sheets, the petitioner’s continued suspension is required or not – Direction issued.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Misra, J.
1. This intra-court appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 27.01.2021 of a Single Judge in Writ A No. 7132 of 2020 disposing off the writ petition of the appellant.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE APPEAL
2. The appellant (writ petitioner @ petitioner) filed Writ A No. 7132 of 2020 for quashing the suspension order dated 16.12.2019 and five departmental charge-sheets issued to her as also for a direction upon the respondents not to take coercive action against her pursuant to the said charge-sheets.
3. The appellant was appointed as Secretary to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (for short CMD), Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India (for short ALIMCO), Kanpur, a Government of India undertaking, vide letter dated May 10, 2000, on her selection pursuant to an Advertisement dated 20.02.2000. She joined the post on 01.06.2000. On 21.08.2007, she was designated as Deputy Manager (P & A) with additional duties at CMD Secretariat and as a Public Information Officer. Thereafter, on 01.07.2012, she was promoted on E-4 level post of Manager (P & A) and was assigned additional duties of a Vigilance Officer. Later, on 01.01.2015, she was promoted to E-5 level post as Senior Manager (P & A) and, on 03.08.2018, was transferred to APOC (ALIMCO Prosthetic and Orthotic Centre) from P & A department. It is the case of the appellant that a close relative of the CMD (third respondent) was appointed as Marketing Officer in the respondent company in the year 2015. A complaint in respect of nepotism was made in the Ministry concerned. Some officers, inimical to the appellant, poisoned the third respondent that the complaint is at the behest of the appellant. As a consequence whereof, persecution of the appellant began resulting in issuance of five charge-sheets preceded by suspension.
4. In the writ petition the appellant claimed that the charge-sheets were to harass the petitioner by raising stale and frivolous issues; and were deliberately issued during the lockdown period to conduct enquiry through virtual mode to the detriment of the petitioner even though it was not permissible under the Rules.
5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order rejected the prayer of the appellant to quash the charge-sheets and the order of suspension, however, after recording the undertaking of the respondents that they would hold a de novo inquiry in respect of three charge-sheets dated 01.06.2020; 12.06.2020; and 13.06.2020, wherein the inquiry had proceeded substantially, the learned Single Judge disposed off the petition by providing that the enquiry officer would conduct the inquiry at Kanpur; the appellant would cooperate in the inquiry and would not seek unnecessary adjournments; the reply to the charge-sheets would be submitted within a month, if not already filed, and the inquiries shall be completed within a period of three months provided the appellant co-operates.
6. Aggrieved with the refusal of the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheets and the order of suspension, this intra-court appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
7. We have heard Sri Shesh Kumar and Sri Tarun Varma for the appellants; Sri Rahul Shukla and Sri Bal Mukund, for the respondents.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE IMPUGNED CHARGE-SHEETS
8. Before we proceed to notice the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite for us to have a glimpse at the five impugned charge-sheets and the order of suspension dated 16.12.2019 to have a clear understanding of the context.
9. The impugned order of suspension has been passed by the General Manager (Marketing) & Disciplinary Authority in contemplation of departmental inquiry in exercise of power conferred upon it by Rule 20 (1) of the Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India, Kanpur
Misconduct - Quash of Suspension order - Order of suspension was passed in contemplation of inquiry without referring to misconduct - Direction is issued to disciplinary authority to reconsider wheth....
An employment sought on false and forged certificates pertaining to eligibility conditions is void ab initio or non est. Administrative decisions should not be interfered by the Court on an asking by....
Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima-facie supported by any credible material placed before the court.
Charge-sheets should not be quashed at the initial stage and suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or routine manner. The competent authority should examine the charge-sheets and take a deci....
Unexplained inordinate delay in issuing disciplinary chargesheet near retirement, causing prejudice via withheld retiral benefits, warrants quashing despite employee's interim promotions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
