2006 (4) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n pending disciplinary enquiry. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet which was issued by the Managing Director of the appellant. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. After holding the enquiry, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. According to the report, of the eight charges, four were proved, one partly proved and three not proved. The Managing Director concurred with the Enquiry Officer's findings and issued a show cause notice to the appellant why the punishment of dismissal of service should not be imposed upon him. No reply appears to have been given to this notice and the respondent was dismissed from service on 25th January, 1991. The order of dismissal was also passed by the Managing Director. Challenging the order o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent had not pressed these grounds before the High Court, we cannot allow him to urge these points before us. The only issue which the High Court was called upon to decide was whether the removal of the respondent from service was by a competent authority. 5. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Managing Director was not competent to terminate the respondent's services as on the date of the passing of the order of termination and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid. The High Court was also of the view that this defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court accordingly set aside the order of termination. Since the respondent had already retire....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the services of the General Manager of a company had been terminated by the Chairman of the Board of Directors pursuant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It was not disputed that that meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed terminating the services of the General Manager was invalid. However, a subsequent meeting had been held by the Board of Directors affirming the earlier resolution. The subsequent meeting had been properly convened. The Court held: "Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance to the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on December 16, 1953 to terminate his services,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it. Reliance on the decision in Krishna Kumar V. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer (1979) 4 SCC 289 by the respondent is misplaced. In that case, the appellant had been appointed by the Chief Electrical Engineer, the departmental head. He was removed from service by the Divisional Assistant Engineer. The question for determination was whether the appellant had been removed from the service by an authority subordinate to that which had appointed him in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. Having considered the affidavits filed, the Court came to the conclusion that....