Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. One only hopes that greater wisdom and sensitiveness pervades higher officialdom. Lack of sensitivity and inordinate arrogance seems to be bright in display.

9. A detailed reply affidavit is filed by the respondents and they quote judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parma Nanda v. State of Haryana [1989(2) SCC 177] which canvas a view that an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice is what is called for and the punishment would be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. It further says that if the punishment is based on evidence and that it is not arbitrary, malafide or perverse, no judicial interdiction is called for. Therefore, by necessary implication, when punishment is based on no evidence and the process is arbitrary, malafide and perverse, the Tribunal has to necessarily intervene. Several other cases are also mentioned especially wherein the Apex Court has canvassed a view that for insubordination based on constitutional freedoms no exception can be granted. It is in respect of M.H.Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Development corporation [(1998) 3 SCC 732] wherein the concerned employees has sent a representation to the Government requesting action against higher officials for corruption. But then much water has flown the bridge. We have now recognized the value of whistle blower to the society. The Hon'ble Apex court had held that such disclosures on the basis of public good and welfare must be encouraged. Therefore, the primary question is that what is of benefit to the general public. The government and its functionaries not exist for their personal enhancement or benefit but for the general public. The office decorum, discipline in office and other principles are enunciated not for the enhancement of the concerned officials prestige but for betterment of prospects of the general public. There seems to be misreading of functions and power in this respect. The respondents have explained in paragraph 5 of rely what the respondents have meant by forcible entry. They would say that since explicit permission was not yet granted the entry of employees to their superiors room constitute forcible entry. They have not commented upon the case of the applicant that it was the accepted and the current practice for the Association Office Bearers to meet the AG when they wanted a specific matter to be discussed with him. Nothing prevented him from giving them another time if he was busy at that time since he was there on official business and it would have been wiser on his part to listen to those grievances. He has every right to reject those grievances But, in the best practices of man management and sensitivity in administration there cannot be any doubt that the AG should have received a representation from his subordinate employees whether or not he though such grievances were to be deemed as correct or not. In paragraph 13 of the reply statement, they would say that the findings of the enquiry authority are supported by evidence. Having gone through the evidence we find it to be contrary and evidence given by both PW-1 and PW-2 are against the case put forward by the department. The enquiry authority has never acted judiciously and judicially. They would say that the applicant had not pointed-out any procedural lapse on the part of the enquiry authority. But it is available from the records that he had pointed out the fact that no man can be his own judge in any cause. In paragraph 16 the respondents would say that the superior officer can be met only after getting a specific oral or written permission. But the evidence of the Deputy AG is that normally the current practice is that they can meet the superior officer to put forward their grievances. Since it was a consistent practice followed regularly, if the concerned officer wanted a change in procedure it can only be by accepted means. Since the representation was handed over to the concerned official 3 days prior to it, it can only be assumed that the recipient of such request was also under the bonafide believe that the normal custom would be followed. Otherwise, he would have pointed out-that the present AG is not desirous of meeting them in the 3 days which elapsed between submitting of the representation and the meeting with the AG.