Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.) These two appeals have been taken up together as they involve common questions of law and fact and the parties are also common.
(2.) Mr. B. G. Sampat, who has appeared in person in these appeals, was at the relevant point of time an employee of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. On lsl August, 1988, while he was posted in Calcutta, he was served with a transfer order by the Bombay office of the Newspaper company transferring him from Calcutta to Bombay with effect from 5th August, 1988. Shri Sampat did not comply with the said order of transfer and made several representations to the Bombay office for reconsideration of the same on grounds of hardship. Such request was, however, turned down and it was made clear to Shri Sampat that he was required to join the Bombay office in terms of the transfer order.
(3.) Shri Sampat did not comply with the transfer order and he did not also challenge the same. He was thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 22nd November, 1988, in connection with his conviction by the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, in Case No. T.R. 888 of 1988, for gambling in a public street. Shri Sampat replied to the said show cause notice but, inasmuch as, the same was found to be unsatisfactory, he was served with a chargesheet dated 6th November, 1989, issued on behalf of the Newspaper company proposing to hold an enquiry at Bombay. The chargesheet consisted of two charges, namely, (i) Shri Sampat's failure to comply with the transfer order and (ii) his conviction in the criminal case filed against him for gambling in a public street. Inasmuch as, Shri Sampat did not participate in the domestic enquiry at Bombay, the same was conducted ex parte and the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the materials presented before him on behalf of the Newspaper company held in his Enquiry Report that the charges had been proved against Shri Sampat. The said Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the Disciplinary Authority of the Newspaper company for its consideration. Concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority proposed to terminate Shri Sampat's service and by a letter dated 28th September, 1990, Shri Sampat was asked to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of termination from service should not be imposed. Shri Sampat duly showed cause to the second show-cause notice but ultimately the Disciplinary Authority terminated Shri Sampat from service and informed him accordingly by letter dated 9th November, 1990.;