- (1.) I. Order of dismissal and grounds of challenge The writ petition challenges the order of dismissal of the first petitioner (since deceased) by the respondent-Management. The action was pursuant to constitution of enquiry for an alleged misconduct of the petitioner during his service. The Enquiry Officer had reported that the charges issued against him had been established and the Appointing Authority dismissed him from service. He preferred an appeal to the Managing Director, who had not disposed of the same requiring the petitioner to file a writ petition in CWP No.8462 of 1989. This Court had directed the appeal to be disposed of within a specified time and when it was not complied with, the petitioner had applied to the Court for contempt. The respondent pleaded apology in the contempt proceedings and took permission for disposal of the appeal. The appeal was subsequently disposed of by rejecting the petitioner's claim. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the decision on essentially four grounds: (i) that he had not been given the assistance of a co-worker to defend himself which right he had under the relevant Standing Orders. There was consequently a serious flaw in the procedure of violation of the rules of natural justice; (ii) the Enquiry Officer's report finding him guilty had not been given to him before the punishment was imposed dismissing him from service. Consequently, the order of dismissal is vitiated; (iii) the order of dismissal makes a reference to his alleged past conduct which had not been put to the petitioner and, therefore, it was an additional ground for rendering the decision as legally untenable; and (iv) the Appellate Authority had not given to him a personal hearing which was an essential facet of natural justice and consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority was against law. II. The refutations by the Management and their respective justification
(2.) All these contentions are refuted by the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of obtaining assistance of a co-worker but the petitioner did not secure the presence of such co-worker at his own risk. No error in procedure could, therefore, be pointed out. As regard the contention that the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report was not given to the petitioner, it is urged that there is no specific requirement under the Regulations for handing them over before the decision was taken. The requirement is merely to giving the copy of the report which was done along with the decision of dismissal. In any event, no prejudice could be said to have been caused by the non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report. The reference to the past conduct was only to examine the existence of any extenuating circumstances. It was not used as an aggravating factor for imposing the punishment. The misconduct attributed to the petitioner itself was a serious one to merit a severe punishment of dismissal. As regards the failure of natural justice of not allowing for personal attendance of the petitioner, it is contended that there was no such requirement and the appeal itself was not competent, but the same was decided only as per the orders of this Court. III. Denial of co-worker to assist the defence set up by the employee appraisal of questions of fact brought through documents
(3.) On the issue whether the petitioner had been denied a right of a co-worker to defend himself, the matter has to be examined from the proof of the essential facts. As regards the provisions in the Standing Order 27(i), it is clearly spelt out that "the concerned employee shall be entitled to be assisted by any other representative of registered/recognized trade union or a co-worker." The petitioner points out to the fact that he had given a representation for stoppage of enquiry before the Enquiry Officer on 02.05.1987 and had also forwarded the complaint on 21.05.1987 that the Enquiry Officer was proceeding without giving him an opportunity of assistance through a co-worker. The enquiry officer had a pre-judged opinion of guilt against the petitioner and denied to him such a facility.;