2015 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 93 (KAR.) ::2015 (1) AKR 277

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): D. H. Waghela, C. J, Budihal R. B , JJ

(A) Constitution of India Art. 311 — Disciplinary enquiry — Plea of delay in initiation — Nothing revealed before disciplinary authority what prejudice was caused to interest or right of delinquent due to delay — Therefore, delay is not ground to say that proceedings in disciplinary enquiry were vitiated (Para 15)

(B) Constitution of India Art. 311 — Disciplinary proceedings — Respondent, delinquent appeared in matter — He himself cross-examined all four witnesses examined on side of appellant company, and also led his evidence — Therefore, sufficient opportunity was given to respondent in enquiry proceedings — Thus non-supplying list of witnesses and documents to him along with charge-sheet — Would not be ground to challenge validity of findings of enquiry officer (Para 24)

(C) Constitution of India Art. 311 — Dismissal — Misconduct — Suppression of material fact — Respondent, at time of appointment suppressed material fact that earlier he was serving in public sector undertaking — And had taken voluntary retirement under scheme — It amounts to misconduct — Respondent participated in enquiry proceedings — No prejudice caused to him — Order discharging him from service, upheld — Therefore his order of transfer would non-survive (Para 28,32)

(D) Constitution of India Art. 311 — Disciplinary authority — Respondent working in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HAL, at Koraput in Orissa — Charge-sheet issued him by Bangalore Division — All officers of HAL covered under HAL CDA Rules 1984 (as amended) and MD (HC) Bangalore was appointing and disciplinary authority — Therefore MD (HC) of Bangalore Division had authority to issue charge-sheet and had power to impose punishment — Plea that initiation of disciplinary enquiry by Bangalore Division is without jurisdiction — Not tenable (Para 29)