- (1.) By this writ-petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet dated 1st January, 1988 and has also sought for cancellation of the de novo enquiry initiated in May, 1995 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in 1982 as an Assistant Engineer in the licensing company on probationary basis. As a better offer was received by him from M/s. Crompton Greaves Limited, he voluntarily left the services of the licensing company and in fact the licensing company released him which enabled him to take up job with Crompton Greaves Limited. In 1983 after about a year he left Crompton Greaves Limited and sought appointment afresh with the licensing company. Such appointment was granted on terms and conditions setout in the letter of appointment wherein it has been categorically stated that the appointment was a fresh appointment. While in service, after about 5 years in 1988, a charge sheet was issued wherein certain charges were disclosed and the petitioner was called upon to answer to such charges. A reply was also given and in 1995 a de novo enquiry was sought to be initiated. The said was challenged on the ground of delay and when the Enquiry Officer expressed his intent to continue with the enquiry de novo, this writ-petition was filed and orders sought. The de novo enquiry in 1995 was after a period of 12 years and on the ground of delay alone as held in AIR 1990 SC 1308 disciplinary proceedings be quashed. Reliance has also been placed on 1999 (3) SCC 666 for the proposition that once an employee has retired from service, no departmental proceedings can be continued against him as the said is treated as having lapsed. Therefore, as the petitioner had left the services of the company which was accepted by the licensing company and his rejoining was a fresh appointment, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated is without jurisdiction and be set aside. Counsel for the licensing company submits that in the writ-petition the petitioner has admitted that he had left the services of the licensing company and therefore a lien does not come to an end but is to continue on his rejoin in October, 1984. The terms and conditions on which the petitioner rejoined in 1984 stated that for seniority purposes he would be treated as a new entrant and his past services would not be protected. Rule 16(11) of the Licensing Company's Regulations as amended in 1986 defines an employee to mean a person in the service of the Board. The petitioner was admittedly an employee of the licensing company and therefore the licensing company was entitled to issue a charge sheet in relation to his past services. Non-treatment of seniority was by way of punishment. De novo enquiry was directed by the new incumbent as the records were misplaced due to shifting of office. It was in 1995 that an objection was raised which objection is nothing but an after thought as the petitioner had participated in the proceedings initiated in 1988. Having participated and examined witnesses the petitioner has acquiesced in the proceedings and waived his right to object. The decisions relied on by the petitioner will not apply to the facts of the case as in 1999 (3) SCC 666 there was no specific provision in the subject regulations for deducting sum. Similarly in AIR 1990 S.C. 1308 the petitioner challenged the authority to initiate departmental enquiry before participating therein. Such is not the case here. In fact, in the decision reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 application of the balancing process has been advocated and directions were given for expeditious disposal of the enquiry with consequential directions. Therefore, similar directions be also given in the instant case
(3.) Having considered the submissions of the parties, the petitioner was initially appointed with the licensing company in 1982. In 1983 when better prospects beckoned, he left the services of the licensing company. On the basis of the petitioner's request he was released from service and it is only thereafter that he could join his new posting. One is not aware of the reasons, which led the petitioner to return to serve the licensing company, but nonetheless he did return and he was welcomed by the licensing company. In fact, the return was pursuant to an application filed in April, 1984. The said application was considered and thereafter the letter of appointment was issued in October, 1984. This letter of appointment is of some importance as it has categorically been stated therein that the petitioner was being given a fresh appointment. The word, 'fresh appointment' denotes 'new appointment' which is not in continuation of "any past service. In fact, the licensing company granted 'fresh appointment' to the petitioner on a temporary basis for a period of one year and it was categorically mentioned in para 1 that he may be treated as a new entrant and that seniority of his past services would not be protected. What else would be needed in proof of the petitioner being engaged afresh. The petitioner was also to execute a stamped agreement in the prescribed form stating therein that he was agreeable to serve the Board for a minimum of;