Approval to purchase soap at Rs.1.40 each was obtained for the supply of the same from a Bombay firm.
The Managing Director passes an order companysisting of eighteen pages which was delivered at the residence of the Respondent by about 7.30P.M. on the self same day i.e. 26th November, 1993.
Certain factual aspects on this score ought also to be numbericed viz.
When it was pointed out that the rates are high, you placed supply order with the firm, under your own signatures, Rs.1.25 each.
that prior to the receipt of an explanation, the General Manager, Kumaon Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Nigam was appointed as an Inquiry Officer by or at the instance of the Managing Director.
In September, 1993, the former Managing Director of the Corporation left on an official business to Tibet.
The records depict that the Managing Director returned to the Head Quarter at Nainital on 27th September, 1993 and on the very next day i.e. on 28th September, 1993, the Managing Director withdrew the duties of the General Manager Tourism by an Order No.4927/2.3.
It has been stated that this trek had its due effect and the writ petitioner was served with the show cause numberice cum charge sheet culminating into an order of dismissal.
Inspite of the knowledge of high prices, you recommended for the purchase of the soap required during the tourist season and have recommended that the soap bearing Nigams name shall have good impact on the tourists.
The incident spoken of by the respondent though trivial but we do feel it proper to numbere the same since it has a definite bearing in the matter under discussion.
On your recommendation instructions were issued to cancel the supply order in case of failing to supply the same within 15 days.
The respondent, writ petitioner on this score companytended that, as a matter of fact, the charge sheet if the same can be termed to be so is the aftermath of personal vendetta of the former Managing Director of the Corporation.
Still the supply was number received within the fixed time.
Thus, numberattention was paid by you towards this, while seeking approval.
Before adverting to the rival companytentions, be it numbered that the matter in question involves two principal issues a the issue of bias and malice and b the issue of natural justice.
iv On 26th November, 1993 the Managing Director informed the respondent to be present before him on 26th November itself at 4.00 p.m. and on 26th November itself an eighteen page order was passed dismissing the respondent from services at about 7.30 p.m. It is on this factual backdrop that the matter was taken before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein upon due companysideration of the factual matrix, the order of dismissal was set aside on the ground of being prejudicial, thus resulting in total miscarriage of justice and hence the appeal before this Court by the grant of special leave.
The private Respondent also was subsequently deputed to Tibet alongwith Director General of Tourism U.P. for which the U.P. Government provided a helicopter upto Indian Border and it is this journey by helicopter which the Managing Director had to undergo on foot upto Indian border.
By another Order bearing No.4951/2.5 and having the same date i.e. 28th September, 1993, all financial and administrative powers delegated earlier was withdrawn with immediate effect and the third event on this score is the issuance of the show cause numberice cum charge sheet on 1st October, 1993 having 13 allegations, relevant extracts of which have already been numbericed herein before.
