Mala fides established by High Court with liberty to objectively examine again
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 October 2010
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
In a case where the Director of an autonomous body was suspended and charge sheeted in retaliation the High Court after three years of pendency of the case gave Judgement that Director's Suspension and Charge Memo issued to him are quashed having been vitiated with mala fides. But Court states in order to meet equities one more opportunity is provided to the respondents to objectively examine the allegations of misconduct and may embark upon a full fledged disciplinary proceedings.
The Director joins back her office but in her place there is her Deputy Director who had been holding the additional charge of Member Secretary. He though junior to her issues an order that she will mark her daily attendance and rout all applications to the President of the Society through him.
Later the said Deputy Director proposes to hold an Inquiry against her with the approval of the President while serving the same verbatim 15 out 20 charges to her. She is kept without any work and no one reports to her in hierarchy.
Finally the President of the Society appoints a retired High Court Judge who manages an ex parte Inquiry the Director refuses to attend the proceedings at the Law office of the retired Judge after once lodging her protest.
The Inquiry Report of the retired Judge holds her guilty in 10 out of 15 charges based upon the sworn Affidavits of an Assistant working in the Administration of the society and on the sworn Affidavits of a complainant employee who had retired but holds on to take his revenge.
The Director is given the copy of the Inquiry Report and she replies that the charge sheet to her issued by a person having no statutory powers as he was holding additional charge and moreover she was served the same verbatim charges as had been quashed by the Court.
Though the Society is under the jurisdiction of the CVC but CVC First Stage advice is not taken and she is proceeded under major penalty under CCS CCA Rules 1965. The retired High Court gets Rs 7,55,000/- as fees for his sitting at his own Law Office. Is the role of CVC only advisory in even this case when the Court had found mala fides and referred the case again back to the Society President who could issue charge sheet if reuired and if advised.
The Director no charged Officer is asked why the major penalty of removal from service be imposed on her. She replies to the Memo and approaches the Court. In the Court it is informed by the Respondents that she had been removed from service. The Court allows the amendment of the Petition and by the time the next date comes the roaster is changed. In the next date the Hon'ble Judge does not agree to the amended Petition and gives liberty file fresh Petition against her removal.
Are there any hopes of her Order of removal getting quashed as the mala fides proved were carried forward resulting in her removal from service?
Is there any case Law dealing with the personal mala fides turning in to Institutional or organisational mala fides?
Kindly send email if possible to me.
Roshni.justin@yahoo.com
