- (1.) The petitioner in April 1979 was holding the post of Joint Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited, a Government of India Undertaking. From 25th September, 1978 the petitioner was deputed to look after the current duties of Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer in addition to his own duties as Joint Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer and he was also looking after the jobs of project Manager with effect from 13th September, 1978. While the petitioner was posted at Raja Dock Yard, the petitioner on 26th February, 1976 received a note from the General Manager, Raja Bagan Dock Yard, in connection with clearing of different types of Boilers, Bunkers, Oil Tanks, Loading and Un-loading of Coal and oil to and from vessels at Raja Bagan Dock Yard and T.T. shed and Contract No. E. 1/GM/TM/105 dated 7th January, 1974 thereof with M/s. Azmat Ali. By the said note the petitioner was directed to arrange for the fresh tender in respect of the said job. Be that as it may, it is stated that the petitioner-respondent was charge-sheeted by letter dated 21st April, 1979. The charge-sheet is to be found in Annexure "C" to the petition at pages 67 to 72. From the charge-sheet it appears that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on many grounds. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet and asked for some papers which were relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter an enquiry was held. The petitioner was found guilty or the charges and by letter dated 25th October,1979 the petitioner was dismissed from the service. An appeal was taken and the appeal was dismissed. Hence the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the present rule which was made absolute by the Hon'ble single Judge. Hence the appeal by the Central Water Transport Corporation Limited.
(2.) Mr. S. C. Bose on behalf of the appellant contended that the Writ in the matter between the master and servant does not lie and secondly the appellant is not State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India and there is no violation of the principle of natural justice in the proceeding. It is further argued by Mr. Bose that in a matter between the master and servant the only remedy of the petitioner is by way of damages and not by way of application.
(3.) On behalf of the respondent Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee argued that the appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the different judgments, if it is State and as there is no statutory regulation, at least the principle of natural justice applies and if there violation of principle of natural justice, the petitioner is entitled to the relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.;