TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11152 of 2002, by way of which, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellants against the respondent have been quashed. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. The respondent was working with the appellant-Corporation as a Higher Grade Assistant at its Namakkal Branch. He had applied for, and obtained, a housing loan on 20.6.1991 from the India Housing Finance Development Ltd., Salem, for the purpose of construction of his house to the extent of 1095 sq.ft., and had also applied to the appellant- Corporation for a housing loan, under the Corporation s Individual Employees Housing Scheme for the purpose of completing construction of the said house. An amount to the tune of ₹ 1,30,000/- was outstanding, against the loan availed by the respondent from the India Housing Finance Development Ltd., as also a sum of ₹ 48,000/- required for completion of the said construction. The said loan was sanctioned after completing all requisite formalities. However, it came to the notice of the appellant-Corporation that there had been certain irregularities and deviations with respect to the constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nquiry Officer, as well as that followed by the Disciplinary Authority, satisfied the requirements of Regulation 46(2)(a) of the Regulations, 1960. This is because, mere concurrence of the Appellate Authority, with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, without provision of adequate reasoning, cannot be said to amount to adequate application of judicial mind by the Appellate Authority, for the purpose of imposing the said punishment. F. Aggrieved, the appellant-Corporation filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior counsel, alongwith Ms. Indra Sawhney, Adv. appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the punishment imposed, stating that the same does not fall within the scope of judicial review. Moreover, the decision to not remand the case for reconsideration at such a belated stage, could also not be justified. Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court, are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has opposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, store, toilet and reading room) measuring 385 sq.ft. ii) That your above action tantamounts to breach of agreement. iii) That you submitted a letter dated 20.6.1994 giving false information that you had completed the house in all aspects whereas by your letters dated 10.11.94 and 29.11.94 you had informed us that the rear side of the house was not constructed. It was found that even as on 2.9.1997 the work to complete the construction was not commenced. iv) That you had drawn housing loan in excess by giving false statement as mentioned above. v) That you are putting the premises to commercial use without the knowledge and approval of the Corporation. vi) That you are carrying on manufacturing of Jute bags and Cotton floor mats business in the said premises without the knowledge of the Corporation. 7. In the present case, the High Court after reappreciating the entire evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that in the course of enquiry proceedings, certain witnesses had not been examined in the presence of the delinquent respondent, and that hence, no proper opportunity was given to him to cross-examine such witnesses. Moreover, the documents reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved herein, is also no longer res integra. Whether or not the disciplinary authority should be given an opportunity, to complete the enquiry afresh from the point that it stood vitiated, depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine, the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this, that courts/tribunals, are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before the same are concluded, on the aforementioned grounds. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that, the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is applicable, in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
