Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) A short legal question involved in this Special Appeal is as to whether in a domestic enquiry in an industrial dispute, an outsider could be appointed as Enquiry Officer or not. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order dated September 29, 1995 held that in view of the Standing Order 16(2)(Kha), an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer. Hence, the proceedings were vitialcd. The appellant-establishment, Indian Telephone Industries. Rac-Bareli. has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
(3.) It appears that the respondent, as an employee of the establishment, was charged with some misconduct. An Advocate was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry into the charges against the petitioner-respondent. The petitioner- respondent, on the basis of the enquiry report, was awarded punishment. He challenged the punishment and one of the grounds pressed before the learned Single Judge was that an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer in the teeth of the Standing Orders 16(2)(Kha). The learned Single Judge followed a decision, as relied upon by the petitioner respondent, reported in (1995-I-LLJ-668) (A P); G. Chandra Kanth v. Guntur District Milk Producers Union Ltd. . Bye-law 27 of the relevant Bye-laws provided that the disciplinary authority could itself hold the domestic enquiry or could cause enquiry to be held by any other authority superior in rank to the employee charged. The disciplinary authority, on the other hand, had appointed an Advocate as Enquiry Officer. The Bye-laws, as indicated above, permitted enquiry by the disciplinary authority or any other authority superior in rank to the delinquent. It was thus held that the enquiry was vitiated.;