K. C. JAIN Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION NEW DELHI, AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on 19th Oct., 1968, against the order of the first respondent dated 31st Aug., 1968 terminating the services of the petitioner under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 6 of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959. In the writ petition he has also challenged his continuous suspension and has prayed for directions to the respondents to pay full salary for the petitioner during the suspension and thereafter. Originally, the respondents arrayed in the writ petition, besides the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, were the Director General, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment. On the prayer of the petitioner, by my order dated 22nd Aug., 1974, the Delhi Administration has also been impleaded as respondent No. 4.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that on 10th June, 1957 the petitioner joined the Delhi Administration as a Lower Division Clerk. During the course of his employment, he was in February. 1960 assigned to the Employees' State Insurance Dispensary. While working as a clerk in the dispensary, an incident occurred on 4th Sept., 1961. The petitioner is alleged to have molested a lady patient and squeezed her breasts. On receipt of this complaint, the petitioner was put under suspension by the Superintendent of Medical Services, Delhi Administration, by an order dated 8th Sept., 1961 with effect from the same afternoon. After the petitioner was put under suspension, subsistence allowance was being paid to him On 20th Oct., 1961 a notice was served on the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, as an enquiry into his conduct was proposed to be instituted Thereafter, and enquiry was commenced and concluded on 18th January. 1962 On 12th Feb., 1962, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service, to which he submitted a reply on 12th March, 1962. Thereafter, it appears that no further action has been taken against him in the matter.

(3.) During this period on 29th Jan., 1962, by Annexure B , an option was given to the petitioner to exercise election to serve under respondent No. 1, which was a statutory organisation set up under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the transfer of the services was to take effect from 1st April, 1962 The petitioner exercised the option and on 1st April, 1962 the services of the petitioner were transferred by the Delhi Administration to tie first respondent and thereafter he continued to be in their service.