The petitioner
is governed by clause........ Therein the authorities that could have imposed
the penalty is the General Manager (Development). The authority to whom an
appeal would lie is the Managing Director. The Revisional authority is the
Board. It runs contrary to the Rules. The order or removal has been passed by
the appellate authority and not by the authority who can pass the order of
punishment.
The Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka in N. Dasharath
Wadi Versus The managing director, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore, held that - In the
instant case also a provision for appeal has been provided against the order of
disciplinary authority. It is not the case where there is no provision for an
appeal. Therefore, the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman & Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank and others requires to be applied to the
present case. Under these circumstances I have no hesitation to hold that the
order of removal from service suffers from an error and a defect and
consequently would have to be set aside. Under these circumstances considering
the petitioner’s case so far as the merits of the enquiry report is concerned
would not arise for consideration. The plea is one of an inherent error in
passing the order of punishment. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the
merits of the finding recorded by the Enquiry officer, the petition was allowed
employee reinstated with 50% back wages from dated of removal.
Prepared by:
S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth
& Associates
