M MUTHIAH Vs. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 07.01.2009, the charge memo dated 07.03.2009 as well as the letter dated 30.04.2009 initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts, as set out in the writ petition, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this case, are as follows: THE petitioner is the General secretary of the Balmer Lawrie Group Assistant-s Association. On 02.02 1990, he joined the service of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises, as an officer (P & A) and was promoted as Senior Officer (P & A) in the year 1994 and then as Assistant Manager (P & A) and thereafter as Deputy Manager (P & A). While the petitioner was working as officer on Special Duty, he was placed under suspension on 07.03.2009 based on a charge memo dated 07.03.2009 on the allegation that the petitioner prevented the other officers from performing their duty and instigated them to join in the one day strike on 07.01.2009, which was declared by the oil Sector PSU Officers- Association, of which Balmer Lawrie Group Assistants- Association is a constituent. Since the allegations found in the said charge memo were not true, the petitioner gave a detailed explanation on 18.03.2009 denying the charges levelled against him. Not being satisfied with the same the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 30.04.2009 initiating a departmental enquiry. Aggrieved over the order of suspension, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent is a Government of India Enterprise, but it was not designated as a Government of India Undertaking and the Government of India is holding around 61% of shares and that too through a holding company, namely, the 1st Balmer Lawrie Investments Ltd. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable as against the respondents company. The petitioner company cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State. Moreover, the remedy sought by the petitioner is purely private in nature and the prayer cannot be termed as a public remedy. Therefore, the writ under Article 226 is not maintainable. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a well settled principle that ordinarily no writ will lie against the charge sheet or a show cause notice and only when a charge memo is issued by a person without having no jurisdiction to do so, then only the show cause notice could be quashed. Therefore, on this ground also the writ is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that if the grievance of the petitioner is against the order of suspension, he can very well file a review under Rule 37 of the Conduct, Discipline and Review Rules for officers. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decisions reported in CDJ 2008 MHC 2132 (C. KRISHNAN ..VS.. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER & ANOTHER), (2006) 12 SCC 28 (UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ..VS.. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA), CDJ MHC 012 (MRF LTD., REP.BY CHAIRMAN & M.D.,..VS..THOZHILALAR SANGAM, REP.BY ITS GENARAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS).