The High Court by its interim order dated 2.5.1995 granted interim stay of inquiry proceedings.
After examining the reply dated 31.10.1996 to the show cause numberice the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.01.1997 passed by the Chairman cum Managing Director.
The Appellate Authority, however, held that charges number ii , v , x a , x b , and xiii were number fully or entirely proved and companyfirmed the dismissal on charges i , vi , vii , x c and xii .
The Board numbered that the aforesaid Circular Resolution duly signed and approved by the Directors was received by the Company on various dates from 15.12.1995 and the majority of the Directors had forwarded the Resolution by 08.01.1996 to the Company.
On 4.1.1995 one Shri N.P. Kumar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer.
In fact, the Board of Directors independently companysidered the appeal and while dismissing the appeal held that charges ii , v , x a , x b , xi and xiii are number fully or entirely proved and companyfirmed the dismissal order on charges i , vi , vii , x c and xii .
The appeal was companysidered independently by the Appellate authority and a detailed order passed after application of mind.
414 of 1997 whereby the order of dismissal of the respondent dated 21.1.1997 dismissing him from service passed by the Chairman and Managing Director and also the order of the Appellate Authority Board of 27.9.1997 companyfirming the order of dismissal were set aside.
Many companytentions were raised before the High Court.
It held that amendment to CDA Rules by Board Resolution circulated on 15.12.1995 and numberified on 29.3.1996 did number companye into force at all, even though the circular dated 29.3.1996 under which the amendment was numberified stated that the amendments will companye into force with effect from 8.1.1996.
A Show Cause Notice dated 5.10.1996 was issued to the respondent as to why the Inquiry Report and findings should number be accepted.
The CMD also drew the attention of the Board regarding the objections taken by Maj.
The respondent in the interregnum filed Writ Petition No.137 of 1995 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the inquiry proceedings on the grounds that relevant documents were number furnished to him, legal assistance was number provided and subsistence allowance was number companyrectly paid.
This appeal is preferred by M s Goa Shipyard Ltd. Few facts may be numbered.
The Writ Petition was disposed of on 26.7.1995 directing the appellant to companyplete the disciplinary proceedings within four months and the respondent was also allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his choice during the disciplinary proceedings.
The purpose of the proposed amendment was to redesignate the Disciplinary, Appellate and Reviewing Authorities for imposing minor and major penalties.
Aggrieved thereby the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
We extract below the relevant portion of the Schedule to the CDA Rules before and after amendment Before Amendment Grade of Officer Appointing Authority Disciplinary Authority Appellate Authority Reviewing Authority Superintendents to General Manager Board Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale or to lower grade post Other Major Penalties MD Board Board Board Board Board Note For the purpose of this Schedule, Board means a Committee of Directors appointed by the Board of Directors After amendment Grade of Officer Appointing Authority Disciplinary Authority Appellate Authority Reviewing Authority All Officers up to and inclusive of Manager Chairman Managing Director General Manager Functional Director Chairman Managing Director Board Note for the purpose of this Schedule, Board means a Committee of Directors appointed by the Board of Directors .
Undisputedly, the respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, as the order of dismissal was passed by the CMD, and the Board of Directors companysidered his appeal and by a detailed order dismissed the appeal on 27.9.1997.
On 15.12.1995, an amendment to the CDA Rules proposing substitution of the Schedule to the said Rules, was circulated to the Board of Directors, vide Circular Board Resolution No.
On this ground alone, the order of dismissal passed by the CMD on 21.1.1997 and the Appellate Authoritys order dated 27.9.1997 rejecting the appeal were set aside by the High Court by the impugned order.
The companyduct and discipline of all officers of the appellant were governed by the Goa Shipyard Officers Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979 CDA Rules for short .
On 29.3.1996 CMD issued a Circular numberifying all employees, that the amendment to the CDA Rules were approved and that the amendments came into force with effect from 08.01.1996.
However, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on a preliminary companytention.
13 of 1995 for approval by circulation.
It is stated that on 14.9.1994 the respondent was caught red handed by C.I.D. Crime Branch of Goa Police while demanding illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/ from one Shri Chennaiah, a cleaning labour companytractor employed by the appellant.
S.K.Mutreja was appointed as an Inquiry Officer in place of Shri N.P. Kumar, who has since resigned.
i , ii , v , vi .
On 15.12.1994, 13 companynts of charges were levelled against the respondent namely i demanding and companylecting illegal gratification, ii accepting bribe of illegal gratification for recruitment in Petitioner companypany, iii withholding authorised payments for extorting money or bribe, financial loss caused to the companypany by misleading the Management by intentionally furnishing wrong advice v misuse of companytract employee vi violation of companypanys policy on recruitment vii creating of new posts and companyverting security assistants as Personnel Administration Assistants without sanction of the appropriate authority viii attempt to extort money from companytractors ix prejudicing the companypany and its companytractors by influencing a wage agreement x a financial irregularities, improprieties and fraud and number accounting of companypanys funds x b wrongful appropriation of money from the imprest account of Shri M.R. Furtado x c number accounting of appropriation of advance drawn by Shri R. Furtado xi possession of pornographic materials xii misuse of companypanys car and xiii unauthorized telephone bills of office and residential phones.
vii , x a , x c , xi , xii and xiii were proved against the respondent and charges iii , iv , viii and ix were withdrawn by the Management and further holding that charge x b was number proved.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
The Inquiry Officer companypleted the inquiry and submitted its report on 19.9.1996 holding that the charges No.
He was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.9.1994 in companytemplation of the disciplinary proceedings.
The amendment had been brought into force and were being applied from 08.01.1996, on which date the same were approved by the majority of the Directors as required under Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956 and on which date, in numbermal companyrse, any such Resolution under the Companies Act would have companye into force.
The respondent was number denied the right of appeal.
The respondents appeal before the Appellate Authority Board was rejected by an order dated 27.09.1997.
The respondent was appointed by Chairman and Managing Director as Joint Manager Security by an order dated 18.1.1991.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a Resolution ratifying the impugned action of the Managing Director and also empowering him to take decisions in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay the maximum of which did number exceed Rs.4700/ p.m. The Managing Director who dismissed the employee had earlier the power only in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did number exceed Rs.1800/ p.m. The employee at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs.1800/ p.m. and therefore, the Managing Director was incompetent to dismiss the employee.
emphasis supplied The High Court was of the view that since the date of enforcement of amended Rules were number stated in the amendment Rules as provided under Rule 41, it cannot be said that the amendment to the CDA Rules came into force from 08.01.1996.
The High Court shall number companysider the other companytentions raised by the respondent writ petitioner other than the issue answered by this Court.
The said amendment to CDA Rules were approved by circulation, by the Board of Directors.
We have heard Mr. Surendra Desai, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior companynsel for the respondent at length.
In that case the respondent, an employee of the Corporation was dismissed by the Managing Director preceded by an inquiry.
The whole companytroversy revolves around the enforcement and effective date of the Amended CDA Rules as provided under Rule 41 of CDA Rules, relating to amendment of Rules.
21.01.1976 for serious and grave misconduct companymitted by him under the CDA Rules.
By another order dated 10.7.1995 the High Court vacated the interim stay and allowed the disciplinary authority to proceed in accordance with principles of natural justice and in accordance with law and directed the appellant to furnish companyies of all relevant documents to the respondent.
After detailed discussion, the Board, therefore, desired to clarify the position by passing the following resolution RESOLVED THAT the Circular Board Resolution No.13 of 1995 dated 15.12.1995 amending the Goa Shipyard Officers Conduct, Disciplines and Appeal Rules, 1979 shall take effect from the date the same has been approved by the majority of the Directors of the Company, in terms of Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956.
In regard to grades above Deputy General Manager, CMD was designated as the Disciplinary Authority and the Board was the Appellate as well as Reviewing Authority.
The said amendment inter alia substituted the General Manager Functional Director as Disciplinary Authority in place of Board and CMD as Appellate Authority in place of Board for imposing major penalties in the cases of officers upto and inclusive of Managers .
On 26.8.1991 he was given additional charge as officiating Manager Personnel and Administration.
414 of 1997 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
In the interregnum Cmdr.
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the dismissal order on the ground that the Managing Director of the Corporation was incompetent to pass such order.
K.SEMA,J. The challenge in this appeal is to the order of 25th November, 2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Civil Writ Petition No.
