RAJIV AGARWAL vs CENTRAL ELECTRONICS LTD.

SUNIL GAUR.J.

Impugned order of 17th April, 2018 (Annexure P-1) imposed penalty of dismissal from service upon petitioner who was AGM (SPVMktg.), Central

Electronics Ltd.

Despite service of advance notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

At the outset, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1976 of Central

Electronics Limited, which provides for an appeal against the penalty inflicted upon an employee. Rule 40 thereof provides that against the penalty,

appeal shall lie to the authority specified in the Schedule. The Schedule to the aforesaid Rules of 1976 provides that the Appellate Authority in case of

petitioner would be the Board of Directors of respondent-Company.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by Chairman and Managing Director of respondent-Company who

is heading the Board and one part- time Director is there in the Board and no one else.

Even if it is so, still, petitioner ought to avail of the remedy as provided in the aforesaid Rules. If the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Chairman and

Managing Director of respondent â€" Company is heading the Board or is a member thereof, then he shall recuse and petitioner’s statutory appeal

be heard by the Board minus Chairman cum Managing Director. It is made clear that if a part-time Director of the Board has to hear petitioner’s

appeal, then it be heard expeditiously.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the statutory appeal would be filed within the period of limitation. If it is so done, then the said appeal be

decided by way of a speaking order preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order.

Respondent be apprised of this order forthwith, to ensure its compliance.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.

Copy of this order be given dasti to petitioner’s counsel.