KASTURI RANGACHARY Vs. CHAIRMAN FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ appeals and the writ petition are being disposed of by this common judgment, as the parties in these appeals and the writ petition are the same and the questions of law involved are common.

(2.) These three appeals have been filed against the order dated 13-8-1979 of our learned brother B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J., dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 3937, 4247 and 4420 of 1979, Writ Appeal 311 of 1979 is filed against the order in Writ Petition 3937 of 1979; Writ Appeal 312 of 1979 is against the order in Writ Petition 4420 of 1979 and Writ Appeal 313 of 1979 is against the order in Writ Petition 4272 of 1979. It is stated that Writ Petition 6323 of 1979 was filed after the other writ petitions were disposed of.

(3.) The facts giving rise to these matters are these : The petitioner in all the writ petitions was appointed as an Assistant Direct (Food) in the Food Department of Government of India, in the year 1959. He was promoted as Deputy Director in 1964. Thereafter his services were transferred to Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), in March, 1969. While working in the Corporation, he was promoted as Joint Manager (Port Operations) on 23/12/1976 and put on probation for a period of one year with effect from the date of promotion. His probation was not declared after the expiry of one year; but it was extended from 23rd December, 1977 to 23/09/1978 (for nine months), by an order dated 17/08/1978 of Managing Director of the Corporation. However, it was declared on 8/11/1978. At the time of extension of the period of probation the petitioner preferred an appeal on 2 4/08/1978 to Chairman for cancellation of the order of the extension of the period of probation. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petitions that respondent 2 ordered the extension on the grounds of mala fides and prejudice towards the petitioner. Moreover, respondent 2 made remarks against the petitioner in a letter dated 29/01/1978 on the basis of the same prejudice entertained by him against the petitioner. Further respondent 2 was bent upon harassing the petitioner and with this idea served a charge-memo dated 5/02/1979 with incorrect allegations. This charge-memo will be referred to as the first charge-memo, against which Writ Petition 6323 of 1979 was filed. The petitioner made representation to the Chairman and other authorities against the issue of the charge-memo on the ground of prejudice being entertained by respondent 2 against the petitioner with a prayer to revoke the charge memo. Respondent 2 once again served another notice with respect to the allegations made by the petitioner in his representations dated 16/02/1979 against the First charge-memo, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for using indecent language towards his superiors. The petitioner was then transferred to Kandla by respondent 2 and when the petitioner applied for leave on the ground of his wifes illness, respondent 2 refused to sanction leave The petitioner made a representation to respondent I who did not interfere in the matter. While so, Respondent 2 suspended the petitioner, pending enquiry, on 27/04/1979. The case of the petitioner is that respondent 2 has no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and that respondent 2 has no jurisdiction to suspend him pending enquiry because those powers lie with the Executive Committee of the Corporation.