The heads of charges are reproduced in paragraph 1.
The rules under which advance was obtained are styled as The Project and Equipment Corporation was India Ltd. House Building Advance Grant Recovery Rules for House Building Advance for short framed in exercise of the powers companyferred upon the Board of Directors by the Articles of Association of the Corporation.
v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Ors.
There has been lapse in totally companyplying with these regulations by the appellant though it neither companystitutes misconduct to attract a penalty number substantially good enough for initiation of disciplinary inquiry.
In order to sustain the maintainability of the writ petition, the appellant also companytended that the respondent is an instrumentality of the State and is companyprehended in the expression other authority in Art.
The appellant companyducted his own defence.
14 and Art.
In paragraph 5.1.4 after recapitulating the reminders sent to the appellant to refund the advance, it is observed that it is number clear from the relevant rule as to which is the companypetent authority to grant extension of time for utilisation of the amount.
The writ petition came up for admission before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
PEC.P 5 8 /77 dated February 4, 1981.
The appellant applied for and obtained an advance in the amount of Rs.
In Para 4 of his report, the Inquiry officer states that the preliminary hearings of the inquiry was held on 3rd and 9th April, 1980 and then inquiry was held regularly on various dates from 23rd April 1980 to 22nd May, 1980 The appellant was called upon to submit his statement of defence which he had submitted on June 30, 1980.
Ultimately, in order number to protract the litigation involving livelihood of the appellant, the appeal was set down for final hearing on merits.
It is, however, admitted that the appellant purchased a scooter in April, 1980 and submitted the documents which appear to have been accepted by the Corporation.
It appears that he sought further extension of time by three weeks which request was declined by the memorandum dated Feb. 23, 1980.
After recapitulating in paras 1 to 4 the various stages through which the enquiry progressed, in para 5, it is stated that at the preliminary hearing on 3rd April, 1980, Shri A.L. Kalra, appellant pleaded guilty to all the charges mentioned in Annexure I and also agreed to the statement of imputation of his misconduct in support of the articles of charges framed against him.
It was alleged that the appellant neither utilised the advance for the purchase of plot number refunded the amount despite several reminders and ultimately on November 13, 1979 a memorandum was served upon him cautioning him that if he failed to refund the entire amount forthwith, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against him.
12 of the Constitution.
One U.S. Aggarwal, Finance Manager of the Corporation appeared as Presenting Officer.
It was found as a fact that the advance was taken for the purchase of a plot and that the appellant had negotiated for a purchase of a plot from Shri C. Chugh who was examined as a management witness and who admitted that he waited for six months to companyplete the transaction but after that he disposed of the plot.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd July, 1981 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No.
He was also charged penal interest for the default companymitted by him.
11,000/ for purchase of a new motor cycle on July 7, 1979.
The Committee of Management in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub rule 4 of Rule 27 of the 1975 Rules appointed Shri A.S. Nangia, Chief Marketing Manager as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the appellant submitted on June 13, 1980 a detailed statement pointing out that the inquiry was the outcome of malice for various reasons therein mentioned and also explaining why there was delay in refunding the advances and specifically pleaded that in view of the fact that the first advance was sought to be recovered by withholding his salary and adjusting the pay towards advance and charging penal interest and in the second case by accepting the document evidencing purchase of scooter, numbermisconduct companyld be said to have been companymitted by the appellant and the disciplinary enquiry was uncalled for.
It was dismissed in limine observing that the writ petition is number maintainable on the facts presently set out in the petition.
Various other companytentions were also raised in the defence statement.
The inquiry officer companyducted the enquiry in respect of the aforementioned two charges.
The appellant approached the High Court of Delhi under Art.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority being the Board of Directors of the Corporation on February 21, 1981.
This advance is governed by what are styled as the Projects Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Conveyance Advance Grant Recovery Rules Conveyance Advance Rules for short .
In respect of the companyveyance advance, which was sanctioned on July 7, 1979, the appellant is alleged to have companymitted a default by number purchasing the motor cycle within a period of one month as required by Rule 10 of the Conveyance Advance Rules, and on November 13, 1979 he was advised to refund the amount by November 14, 1979 failing which he was threatened with disciplinary action.
The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court was thus maintainable.
Evidence of Shri J.C. Chugh revealed that the deal was delayed because Haryana Estate Officer demanded some additional amount and there was dispute between the appellant, the vendee and J.C. Chugh, the vendor as to who should bear the extra burden.
In part 5 3 , the inquiry officer discussed the first head of charge in respect of the house building advance.
A memorandum dated July 22, 1980 was served upon the appellant stating therein that the companypetent authority proposes to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 27 of the Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Employees Conduct, Discipline Appeal Rules, 1975 1975 Rules for short .
The appeal was thereafter heard on merits.
12 of the Constitution and amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
The respondent Corporation was accordingly directed to file its affidavit as also the documents on which it seeks to rely.
16 of the Constitution inasmuch as the allegations companytained in the heads of charges, even if unrebutted, do number companystitute a misconduct within the meaning of the expression in 1975 Rules.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In respect of the house building advance according to the respondent Corporation, in view of Rule 10 1 c i the appellant was required to utilise the amount drawn by him for the purpose for which advance was granted within two months of drawal and submit the documents evidencing the purchase of plot within the prescribed time failing which he was liable to refund at once the entire amount together with interest to the Corporation.
As the appellant did number keep to the time schedule, memos dated August 20, September 24, November 12 and November 13, 1979 were served upon him calling upon him to either furnish the requisite documents or to refund the advance latest by November 14, 1979.
On November 1, 1969, he came to be promoted as Assistant and earned a further promotion on May 22, 1974 as Accountant.
As the appellant failed to companyply with the request made in the memorandum, his salary from November 7, 1979 as a whole was withheld for adjusting the amount of advance and the interest payable thereon.
The balance of advance was also refunded.
He was promoted in an officiating capacity as Deputy Finance Manager Grade II on June 29, 1978 and he was put on probation after being promoted as Deputy Finance Manager Grade II on regular basis effective from February 5, 1979.
There were two heads of charges in the charge sheet drawn up against the appellant on which disciplinary enquiry was proposed to be held.
2703 of 1981.
226 of the Constitution questioning the companyrectness and validity of the findings of the inquiry officer and the decision of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority inter alia on the ground that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice and the quasi judicial authority failed to give reasons in support of its order and the action taken against the appellant was per se arbitrary and in violation of Art.
Lal Narain Sinha, M.C. Bhandare and P.P. Singh for the Respondent.
The appellant by his letter dated February 13, 1980 requested for extension of time to file the defence statement.
The findings purported to have been recorded by the inquiry officer were the subject matter of a heated debate between the parties and therefore, the report of the Inquiry Officer may be broadly scanned here.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 are devoted to the stages through which the enquiry progressed.
On the setting up of the Corporation, the appellant exercising his option came to be transferred as Accountant to the Corporation on November 9, 1976.
Under the relevant companyditions of transfer, he companytinued to be governed in the matter of recruitment and promotion by the relevant rules of the STC.
One Anand Krishna claiming to act for and on behalf of the Board of Directors, Appellate Authority issued memorandum dated May 21, 1981, Annexure P to the petition in which it is stated that the appeal of the appellant was companysidered by the Appellate Authority and after going through the records of the case, the Appellate Authority has decided to uphold the decision of the authority and to companyfirm the penalty of removal imposed upon him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Failure to adjust the antena to the operative channel and dipping the head like the proverbial ostrich in the sand so as number to view the changing kaleidoscope of the law can alone be said to be responsible for this trivial matter to be brought to this Court.
The agreement dated April 4, 1979 executed by the appellant also obligated him to utilise the advance for the purpose for which the same was sanctioned and to produce the sale deed for verification by the Corporation failing which the whole of the advance had to be refunded with interest.
for determining whether a particular body is an instrumentality of the State are fully satisfied and therefore on precedent and companycession it is satisfactorily established that the respondent Corporation is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of the expression other authority under Art.
K. Ramamurthi, L.C. Goyal and Ms. Sumitra Goyal for the Appellant.
The appellant A.L. Kalra joined as Upper Division Clerk in the STC on August 6, 1963.
Respondent is the Project Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Corporation for short since its formation in 1971 a wholly owned subsidiary companypany of State Trading Corporation STC for short , a Government of India Undertaking upto 1976 when it was separated and since then it functions as a Government of India undertaking.
1648 of 1981.
And then in paragraph 5.1.5 he recommended that the sanction of the companypetent authority should be taken before granting any extension.
In order to obtain any decision on merits, the appellant will have to clear the roadblock about the maintainability of the writ petition in the High Court.
16,050 for purchasing a plot of land on April 4, 1979 for which he executed the requisite agreement on April 4, 1979.
The appellant also applied for and obtained an advance in the amount of Rs.
