In the above extract, the expression petitioners means the writ petitions who are respondents in these appeals and the expression respondents means the appellants herein.
They denied the charges of victimisation or unfair labour practice levelled by the respondents.
They also denied that the Board had already made up its mind to dismiss the respondents.
They also raised several grounds with respect to the regularity and validity of the manner in which the enquiry against them was companyducted.
The writ appeals were accordingly disposed of with the above observations.
The Division Bench was also of the opinion that at the present stage of disciplinary proceedings, numberinterference is warranted by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A companyy of the Enquiry Officers report along with depositions of witnesses was enclosed to the said numberices.
The respondents, R.Rajan and C.A.Rajan, are the Secretary and President respectively of the Association of Assistant Engineers in the service of the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board The Board .
While affirming the power of the General Manager to impose the penalty of dismissal upon the respondents, the learned companynsel for the Board appears to have stated before the learned Single Judge that the Board does number propose to impose the punishment of dismissal on the respondents writ petitioners even if the charges against them are established vide Para 29 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Disciplinary action has been initiated against them under the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1978 Regulations .
In the present appeals preferred by the Board, the holding of the Division Bench with respect to the powers of the Managing Director is called in question.
After the receipt of the Enquiry Officers report, the General Manager of the Board issued numberices to the respondents calling upon them to submit their defence, if any within seven days of the receipt of the said numberices.
The appellants respondents in the writ petitions opposed the writ petitions inter alia on the ground that the High Court ought number have interfered at that stage of disciplinary proceedings.
The respondents filed two writ appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposing of writ appeals, preferred by the respondents, with certain directions.
At that stage, the respondent approached the Madras High Court by way of writ petitions companytending that the Board is bent upon dismissing them from service, that they were being victimised for union activities and that the General Manager who has issued the aforesaid numberices has numberjurisdiction to impose the punishment of dismissal.
P.JEEVAN REDDY,J. Leave granted.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
