AMAR NATH CHOWDHURY Vs. BRAITHWAITE AND COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
January 11,2002
AMAR NATH CHOWDHURY
Appellant
VERSUS
BRAITHWAITE AND COMPANY LIMITED
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MOHAN LAL SHARMA VS. FOOD CORP OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2004-8-24] [REFERRED TO]R C GUPTA VS. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH SHRI RAM BHAROSEY LAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-249] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-234] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. VIDUR GRAMIN BANK BIJNOR [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. VIDUR GRAMIN BANK BIJNOR [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHANDRA SINGHAL VS. VIDUR GRAMIN BANK BIJNOR [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
B S DWARAKANATH VS. KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2007-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE VS. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
W B COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. SHYAMANAND JHA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
N LINGAPPAN VS. SYNDICATE ANNA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMARAJ S VS. CHAIRMAN AND DISCRIPLINARY AUTHORITY PANDYAN GRAM BANK VIRUDHUNAGAR [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-284] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL INSTRUMENTS CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
S MAHADEVAN VS. REGIONAL MANAGER [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
JASPAL SINGH VS. LT GOVERNMENT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2002-9-266] [REFERRED]
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PRAVINSINH AJITSINH JADEJA [LAWS(GJH)-2002-4-21] [REFERRED]
R M SHAH VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
R YASOTHA VS. APPELLATE COMMITTEE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-204] [REFERRED TO]
R KUMARAVEL VS. TAMIL NADU MARITIME BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-247] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD.QUADER ALI VS. A.P.TRANSCO LTD [LAWS(APH)-2012-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2009-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
NAHIDABANO W/O. FEROZKHAN PATHAN VS. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, AURANGABAD DIVISION [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-11] [REFERRED TO = (2002) 2 SCC 290 11.]
YOGESH KUMAR SWAIN VS. MANAGEMENT OF M/S BIRLA TEXTILE MILLS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-496] [REFERRED TO]
S DHARMARAJ VS. CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY PANDYAN GRAMA BANK [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-473] [REFERRED TO]
V CHANDRAIAH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-2011-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
G. K. GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
N. Roy Chowdhury VS. Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
VED PARKASH GUPTA VS. HARYANA STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-142] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALLAHABAD U.P. GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-358] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM ROY VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
MOKARRAM ALI VS. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-488] [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-485] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BIHARI SINGH VS. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2015-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SHARMA VS. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, UDAIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
A.K.S. RATHORE VS. UNION OF INIDA & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTI BIKRAM KISHORE DEB BARMAN VS. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2005-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
H S SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-382] [REFERRED]
MUNNI LAL YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 9 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-359] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SHARMA VS. AAI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-136] [REFERRED TO]
PANCH DEV JOSHI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-42] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. RAM PARKASH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-1-303] [REFERRED]
SMT. MAZDA BEGUM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH THE SECY. PLANNING VIDHAN BHAVAN LKO.AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-249] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GOYAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
A P NIRMAN PVT LTD , RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2017-10-44] [REFERRED TO]
DR RAHUL AGARWAL VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-270] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GURUKUL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VS. SHARDA ASHOK SURYAGANDH [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-55] [REFERRED TO]
ESTATE OFFICER VS. DR. ASHWINI S/O SHRIRAM JAISWAL [LAWS(MPH)-2020-3-285] [REFERRED TO]
GURUKUL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VS. SHARDA ASHOK SURYAGANDH [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-153] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
AKADEMI VS. GNCTD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR SINGH VS. ARUNACHAL PRADESH RURAL BANK [LAWS(GAU)-2022-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
V. N. Khare, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant herein was an employee of the Braithwaite and Company Limited, Calcutta, a Government of India Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). It appears that certain misconduct committed by the appellant came to the notice of the Company. With the result, the Company decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, herein. Consequently, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet to which he gave an explanation. An Inquiry Committee constituted for that purpose after making an enquiry, found that the charges levelled against the appellant proved. The Inquiry Committee accordingly submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, who was the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company accepted the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee and he, by order dated 13-2-84, removed the appellant from service.
(3.)Under the regulations framed by the Company, an appeal against an order of the Disciplinary Authority lies before the Board of Directors of the Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of his removal from service before the Board. It is not disputed that Shri S. K. Krishnaswami, who was then the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company and who, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority, removed the appellant from service presided over and participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board. The Board by order dated 31-8-84, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by a non-speaking order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court after having found defect in the proceedings, set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant. The Company filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench found the order and judgment of the Learned single Judge as erroneous and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.)The appellant herein was an employee of the Braithwaite and Company Limited, Calcutta, a Government of India Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). It appears that certain misconduct committed by the appellant came to the notice of the Company. With the result, the Company decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, herein. Consequently, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet to which he gave an explanation. An Inquiry Committee constituted for that purpose after making an enquiry, found that the charges levelled against the appellant proved. The Inquiry Committee accordingly submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, who was the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company accepted the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee and he, by order dated 13-2-84, removed the appellant from service.
(3.)Under the regulations framed by the Company, an appeal against an order of the Disciplinary Authority lies before the Board of Directors of the Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of his removal from service before the Board. It is not disputed that Shri S. K. Krishnaswami, who was then the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company and who, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority, removed the appellant from service presided over and participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board. The Board by order dated 31-8-84, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by a non-speaking order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court after having found defect in the proceedings, set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant. The Company filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench found the order and judgment of the Learned single Judge as erroneous and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned single Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.