AWTAR SINGH Vs. ZONAL MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORP OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was employed as a Chowkidar in the Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, at Delhi Gate, Delhi. On 26 9-1964, while the petitioner was not on duty, a fire broke out in the building of the Divisional Office. The cause of tire was enquired into by the local police and other experts hut, it is alleged no conclusive evidence could be marshalled in order to prosecute any person holding him responsible for the fire On '20th March, 196, the Deputy Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India exercising the powers of the Zonal Manner, issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner, preferring the following two charges against him :-

(2.) On 15th April, 1965, the petitioner sent a reply to the chargesheet denying the allegations made against him. An Enquiry was held by one Shri T.R. Iyer and a report was submitted. On the basis of .his report the Disciplinary Authority concerned issued show cause notice to the petitioner. After the petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice. On consideration of the reply and the material befora him the Deputy Zonal Manager passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service of the Corporation. The petitioner tried to raise an industrial dispute through his trade union bat the Government did not consider the matter fit for referrence to the Industrial Tribunal for adjadication. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The complaint of the petitioner is that he was charge-sheeted by an authority who was not competent to do so, that he was not supplied with a copy of the Police Report which was the basis of initiation the departmetal action against him, that the list of prosecution witnesses was not supplied to him in advance, that he was not permitted to hive inspection of the file pertaining to the charges preferred against him, that he was not allowed the assistance of a lawyer cr any other eduacted person which was necessary in view of the fact that he himself was illiterate, that the procedure that the Enquiry Officer was to adopt in holding the enquiry was not disclosed to the petitioner in spite of his asking the Enquiry Officer to do so and that he was not generally given opportunity to lead his defence or cross-examine prosecution.witnesses.