The Division Bench found the order and judgment of the Learned Single Judge as erroneous and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed.
One of the arguments raised by Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that the order of removal having been passed by the Disciplinary Authority Shri S. Krishnaswami, who was then the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Company, was disqualified to have presided over and participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board which heard and dismissed the appeal and, therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority was vitiated on account of legal bias.
The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of his removal from service before the Board.
The Disciplinary Authority, who was the then Chairman cum Managing Director of the Company accepted the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee and he, by order dated 13.2.84, removed the appellant from service.
An Inquiry Committee companystituted for that purpose after making an enquiry, found that the charges levelled against the appellant proved.
A Learned Single Judge of the High Court after having found defect in the proceedings, set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant.
The Company filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Under the regulations framed by the Company, an appeal against an order of the Disciplinary Authority lies before the Board of Directors of the Company hereinafter referred to as the Board .
The Inquiry Committee accordingly submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court.
Consequently, the appellant was served with a charge sheet to which he gave an explanation.
The Board by order dated 31.8.84, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by a number speaking order.
With the result, the Company decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, herein.
N. KHARE, J. Leave granted.
The appellant herein was an employee of the Braithwaite and Company Limited, Calcutta, a Government of India Undertaking hereinafter referred to as the Company .
It appears that certain misconduct companymitted by the appellant came to the numberice of the Company.
