{"id":231176,"date":"2006-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006"},"modified":"2018-11-26T06:57:25","modified_gmt":"2018-11-26T01:27:25","slug":"m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 14\/03\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.21812 of 2005\nW.P.M.P.No.23765 of 2005   \n\nM.K.Dange                      ...                     Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     Chairman-cum-Managing \n        Director,\n        Oil and Natural Gas Corporation,\n        Jeevan Bharati Building,\n        124, Connaught Circus,\n        New Delhi 110 001.\n\n2.      The Director (Finance),\n        Oil and Natural Gas Corporation,\n        Jeevan Bharati Building,\n        124, Connaught Circus,\n        New Delhi  110 001.\n\n3.      The General Manager (F&A),\n        Oil and Natural Gas Corporation,\n        CMDA Building,\n        Egmore,\n        Chennai  600 008.               ...             Respondents\n\n        This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of\nIndia, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus,  calling\nfor the records relating to Order No.ONG\/SR\/CO\/DISCP\/93 dated 7.12.1993 passed  \nby the Third respondent as extended by order No.17721(06)\/SCRO\/E.II\/2003 dated \n6.6.2005  passed  by  the  third  respondent,  quash  the  same and direct the\nrespondents to reinstate the petitioner  in  service  with  all  consequential\nbenefits,  including payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the date of\nhis suspension till the date of his reinstatement together  with  interest  at\n12%  per  annum and consider him for promotion to the next higher posts on par\nwith his immediate juniors.\n\n!For Petitioner         :       Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar\n                                for M\/s.PVS Giridhar Associates\n\n^For Respondents                :       Mr.G.Masilamani, Sr.Counsel\n                                for M\/s.King & Partridge\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of suspension  dated
\n7.12.1993  as extended by order dated 6.6.2005, passed by the third respondent
\nand direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner  in  service  with  all
\nconsequential benefits including payment of arrears of pay and allowances from
\nthe  date  of  his  suspension  till  the  date of reinstatement together with
\ninterest at 12% per annum and consider the petitioner  for  promotion  to  the
\nnext post on par with his immediate juniors.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      When  the miscellaneous petition was taken up for hearing, the
\nlearned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well  as  the  learned  Senior
\nCounsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the arguments in both the
\nmiscellaneous  petition  as  well  as the main writ petition will be the same.
\nHence with the consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself was  taken
\nup for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The  original  order  of  suspension dated 7.12.1993, which is
\nalso impugned in this writ petition reads as follows,
\n        “It has been decided by the Competent Authority to conduct preliminary
\nenquiry into the matter relating to the passing of payment of Rs.3  0,84,124\/-
\nin  favour  of  M\/s.Western Services International against the instructions of
\nONGC without  proper  verifications.    The  continuance  of  Shri  M.K.Dange,
\nDy.Director  (F&A)  on  duty  is likely to prejudice investigation, enquiry or
\ntrials.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Now, therefore, the undersigned  in  exercise  of  the  powers
\nconferred  under  sub-Regulation  (1) of Regulation 33 of ONGC CDA Regulations
\n1976 as amended from time to time read with powers conferred on my office vide
\nItem No.C2.2 of BDP 1993 of ONGC, hereby place Shri M.K.   Dange,  Dy.Director
\n(F&A) under suspension with immediate effect.”\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The  Charges  framed against the petitioner for initiating the
\ndisciplinary proceeding are as follows,
\n        “a)     Indulged in false fabrication of letter heads and  letters  in
\nthe  name  of  Western Services International, a Foreign Company of USA origin
\nwhich had certain contractual relations with the ONGC in  the  past  with  the
\nintention  to  make  fraudulent claims of income-tax refund amount held in the
\nname of the said Western Services International.\n<\/p>\n
        b)      Falsely introduced one Shri I.Rathnakar of  Hyderabad  as  the
\nProprietor  of  the  said  Western  Services International to the Andhra Bank,
\nChetpet Branch with a view to facilitate the said Shri I.Rathnakar opening  an
\naccount in the name of the said Western Services International for the purpose
\nof  fraudulently  encashing  the  cheque  to  be issued in the name of Western
\nServices International purporting to be the refund amount.\n<\/p>\n
        c)      Falsely fabricated a letter purportedly 20.10.93 as if  issued
\nfrom  the  Income-tax  Wing  at  Dehradun  to  Shri  D.P.Mukherjee, Additional
\nDirector, Finance  and  Accounts,  ONGC,  Madras,  authorising  to  refund  of
\nincome-tax held in the name of Western Services International.\n<\/p>\n
        d)      Knowing  fully well the fraudulent nature of the transactions,
\nprepared and signed a bank payment voucher dt.2.12.93  for  Rs.30,84,124\/-  in
\nthe  name of the said Company to the tune of the said amount with an intention
\nto fraudulently encash the same and obtain the proceeds.\n<\/p>\n
        e)      Negligently deducted an  amount  of  Rs.33,10,819\/-  from  the
\nrefund  amount  held  in  the  name  of  Western  Services  International  and
\nauthorised the remittance of the same to the Income-tax department towards the
\nPersonnel Tax liability of Western Services International  though  the  amount
\nactually belonged to ONGC.\n<\/p>\n
        Thus,  Shri  M.K.Dange,  Sr.F&AO failed to maintain absolute integrity
\nand devotion to duty.  He has committed fraud  and  dishonesty  in  connection
\nwith the  business  or  property  of the Company.  He has shown dereliction of
\nduty with ulterior motive and thereby he has committed  gross  misconduct  and
\ncontravened  the  provisions of Rule 4(1), a, b, c read with Sl.Nos.(3), (5) &
\n30 of Schedule II to Rule 3(J) of ONGC, CDA Rules, 1994.”\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The petitioner herein, earlier challenged the  original  order
\nof  suspension  dated 7.12.1993 passed by the third respondent as confirmed by
\norder dated 30.5.2001 of the Chief Manager, ONGC,  in  W.P.No.15495  of  2002.
\nThe said  writ  petition  was  dismissed  by  this  Court  on  22.8.2003.  The
\noperative portion of the order dated 22.8.2003 reads as follows,
\n        “For all the above reasons, I find no merit in the writ  petition  and
\nthe same  is  liable  to  be  dismissed.  However, this Court has to take into
\nconsideration of the fact that though on the  given  facts  and  circumstances
\nupheld  the  order  of prolonged suspension, nevertheless, the trial cannot be
\nprolonged for no reasons as after the charges were  framed  and  most  of  the
\nwitnesses  had been examined, it would be in the interest of the petitioner to
\ncomplete the trial as expeditiously as possible.  However, in the  absence  of
\nany details as to the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the prosecution as
\nwell  as on behalf of the petitioner and the time to be consumed for the same,
\nI do not propose to fix any time limit for the criminal Court to complete  the
\ntrial.   However, both the petitioner and the respondents are given liberty to
\napproach the 8th Additional (CBI) Court, Chennai for expeditious  disposal  of
\nthe case.    In  the event of such applications being filed, the same shall be
\nduly considered by the learned Judge who shall expedite the trial and complete
\nthe same as expeditiously as possible.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Judge thus upheld the order of suspension dated 7.12.1993 .\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The learned counsel appearing  for  the  petitioner  contended
\nthat  after  disposal  of the above writ petition, the Principal Special Judge
\nfor CBI cases  tried  the  criminal  case  filed  against  the  petitioner  in
\nC.C.No.176 of  1997  and  acquitted the petitioner from the charges.  Based on
\nthe acquittal, petitioner made a representation on  22.3.2005  to  the  second
\nrespondent seeking  revocation  of suspension.  Since there was no response, a
\nreminder was sent by the petitioner on 8.5.200  5  and  thereafter  the  third
\nrespondent  by  order  dated  6.6.2005  extended  the suspension until further
\norders.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      The thrust of the arguments made by the  learned  counsel  for
\nthe  petitioner  is  that  after  the  petitioner having been acquitted by the
\ncriminal Court, there  is  no  justification  to  keep  the  petitioner  under
\nsuspension  and the prolonged suspension of the petitioner for 12 years is not
\nlegally sustainable.  The second contention urged by the learned  counsel  for
\nthe  petitioner  is  that  the  extension of suspension order is issued by the
\nthird respondent in a mechanical manner without any application of mind and no
\nreason for such extension is stated.  The third contention is that  no  ground
\nexists  for  continuing  the  order  of  suspension  after  the  acquittal  of
\npetitioner from the criminal case and due to the extension of suspension,  the
\npetitioner  is  not  only  denied  his salary and other benefits, but also his
\npromotional chances are being affected and several of his juniors are promoted
\nas Deputy Managers and Managers ahead of the petitioner.  The learned  counsel
\ncited the following judgments in support of his contentions,\n<\/p>\n
a)      AIR 1984 SC 626 (Corporation of Nagpur v.  Ramchandra G.Modak)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
b)      2002 WLR 546 (A.Boopalan v.  The Assistant Director, Khadi and
\nVillage Industries and another)<\/p>\n
c)      2003 WLR 644 (C.Baskaran v.  The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu  State
\nTransport Corporation, Dindigul & Others)<\/a><\/p>\n
d)      1996 WLR 332 (K.Thangaraj v.  The Managing Director, Dheeran
\n        Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Limited, Tiruchirapalli)<\/a><\/p>\n
e)      (1994) 28 Administrative Tribunals Cases 711 ( Sulekh Chand v.\n<\/p>\n
        Commissioner of Police) (SC).\n<\/p>\n
        8.      The  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the respondents
\nsubmitted that the petitioner was not honourably  acquitted  in  the  criminal
\ncase  as  claimed by the petitioner, but his acquittal was solely on the basis
\nof benefit of doubt.  The learned counsel also pointed out  that  the  alleged
\ndiscriminatory  treatment  given  to the petitioner has no substance since the
\nco-delinquent viz., Harid was dismissed  from  the  service  and  the  present
\nimpugned  order  is  only extension of the suspension order already issued and
\nthe same should be read along with the  original  order  of  suspension  dated
\n7.12.1993  and  therefore no further reason need be given for extension of the
\nsuspension.  The learned Senior Counsel further submitted  that  even  if  the
\ndelinquent  is  acquitted  in  the criminal case, it is the prerogative of the
\ndepartment to  conduct  departmental  enquiry.    In  support  of   the   said
\nproposition the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions,\n<\/p>\n
i)      (2003) 9 SCC 164 (Principal, J.D.Patil Sangludkar and another v.
\nGanesh) <\/p>\n
ii)     (2005) 7 SCC 764 (Ajit Kumar Nag v.  General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil
\nCorpn.  Ltd., Haldia and others<\/a>), and\n<\/p>\n
iii)    (2006) 1 MLJ 511 (Indian Overseas Bank v.  P.Ganesan).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        9.      In  the  light  of  the above submissions and contentions, the
\nfollowing issues arise for determination in this writ petition,\n<\/p>\n
        1)      Whether the management is justified in extending the order  of
\nsuspension even after the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case ?\n<\/p>\n
        2)      Whether  for  extending the order of suspension, fresh reasons
\nshould be recorded in the order of suspension ?\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Issue No.1:   It  is  not  in  dispute  that  even  after  the
\nacquittal by the Criminal Court, the department has the right to continue with
\nthe  disciplinary  proceedings  as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
\ndecision  reported  in  AIR  2003  SC  .M.D.,  United  Commercial   bank,   v.
\nP.C.Kakkar), wherein in paragraph 15 it is held as follows,
\n        “…   Acquittal  in  the  criminal  case  is not determinative of the
\ncommission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to  the  authorities  to
\nproceed  with  the  disciplinary  proceedings,  notwithstanding  acquittal  in
\ncriminal case.  It per se would not entitle the  employee  to  claim  immunity
\nfrom the  proceedings.    At  the  most  the  factum  of  acquittal  may  be a
\ncircumstance to be considered while awarding punishment.  It would depend upon
\nfacts of each case and even that cannot have universal application.”\n<\/p>\n
        11.     The  Honourable  Supreme  Court  in  a  very  recent  decision
\nreported in   JT   2006   (1)   SC   444   =  (2006)  1  M.L.J.    166  (S.C.)
\n(Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S.Corpn.  Ltd.  & Ors.  v.  K.Meerabai)<\/a> considered a
\nsimilar issue as to  whether  departmental  proceeding  can  be  initiated  or
\ncontinued  after  the acquittal in the criminal case for the criminal charges.
\nIn paragraph 25, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus,
\n        “The scope of disciplinary  proceedings  and  the  scope  of  criminal
\nproceedings  in  a  court  of  criminal  law are quite distinct, exclusive and
\nindependent of each other.  The prosecution proceedings launched  against  the
\nrespondent  herein  were  in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409
\nand 477A IPC, whereas the departmental proceedings as  initiated  against  her
\nwere  in  respect  of  the  charges  of  misappropriation and other fraudulent
\npractices such as  deliberate  omission  to  bring  into  accounts  the  stock
\nreceived  showing  bogus  issues  in  the  records, falsification of accounts,
\nsubmission of  defective  accounts,  tampering  of  records,  manipulation  of
\naccounts and  records  etc.  Thus, the respondent herein was proceeded against
\nfor quite different charges and on different sets of facts before the court of
\nChief Judicial Magistrate, on  the  one  hand,  and  before  the  departmental
\nenquiry on the other.”\n<\/p>\n
In  the  said  judgment  it  is  further held that the High Court was wrong in
\nsetting aside the order of dismissal on the ground  that  the  criminal  Court
\nacquitted the delinquent and in paragraph 24 held thus,
\n        “The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was based
\non  dispassionate and independent examination and appreciation of the entirety
\nof  facts  and  evidence  on  record  relating   to   the   malpractices   and
\nmis-appropriation  indulged  in  by the respondent in collusion with the other
\nmembers of the staff causing thereby huge loss to the Corporation.”
\nIn view  of  the  above  said  decisions,  it  cannot  be  disputed  that  the
\nrespondents\/Management   are   entitled   to  proceed  with  the  departmental
\nproceeding, in spite of the acquittal in the criminal case, more particularly,
\nwhen the criminal Court acquitted the petitioner by giving benefit  of  doubt.
\nAt  this  juncture  I feel it relevant to extract the findings of the criminal
\nCourt in paragraph 58 of its judgment, which reads as follows,
\n        “…  as rightly contended  by  the  accused,  the  benefit  of  doubt
\nemanating  from  the  same  should  be  extended  in favour of the accused and
\naccordingly the benefit of doubt emerging from the case is extended in  favour
\nof the  accused.    I  hold  therefore,  that  the  prosecution  has failed to
\nestablish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
\nacquit the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
A reading of the above judgment makes it clear that  the  petitioner  was  not
\nacquitted on merits and only on the basis of giving benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     The  learned  counsel  appearing  for the petitioner submitted
\nthat even though the charges were framed in the year 1997, no earnest step was
\ntaken to conduct the enquiry and complete the disciplinary proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     In reply to the above submission, the  leaned  Senior  Counsel
\nappearing  for  the respondents submitted that by the letter dated 27.3.199 7,
\nthe petitioner requested for postponement of the enquiry due to  the  pendency
\nof  investigation and filing of charge sheet by CBI in the 6th Additional City
\nCivil Court, Chennai and if the  enquiry  is  conducted,  the  rights  of  the
\npetitioner  will  be  in jeopardy and further stated that defending himself in
\ntwo different Forums will cause tremendous mental agony and financial strains.
\nA copy of the said letter is filed among the typed set of papers.  The learned
\nSenior Counsel relying upon the said letter submitted that  only  due  to  the
\nsaid  request  of  the  petitioner  the  enquiry was not proceeded with and no
\nfinality was reached in the departmental proceeding,  and  for  the  delay  in
\ncompleting  the  disciplinary proceeding, the management should not be blamed.
\nLearned Senior Counsel also  submitted  that  if  a  direction  is  issued  to
\ncomplete  the  disciplinary  proceeding  within a stipulated period and if the
\npetitioner extends his co-operation, the management is willing to complete the
\nentire proceedings within the stipulated time.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     Issue No.2:  As regards the issue of non-application  of  mind
\nraised  by  the  learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of extension of
\nsuspension order, it is to be noted that the order dated 6.6.2005 is  only  an
\nextension of the earlier suspension order.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     The  order  of  suspension dated 7.12.1993 specifically states
\nthat  the  continuance  of  petitioner  in  duty  is   likely   to   prejudice
\ninvestigation, enquiry  or  trial.    Even  according  to  the petitioner, the
\ninvestigation in the criminal case and the trial in the  criminal  case  alone
\nwere  over  and  the enquiry in the disciplinary proceeding is yet to be over.
\nHence the reason stated in the original order of  suspension  dated  7.12.1993
\nholds good for the continuance of suspension by order dated 6.6.2005.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     The  learned  Senior  Counsel  submitted  that  as against the
\njudgment of the criminal Court, the CBI has filed an appeal before this  Court
\nin  Crl.A.No.501 of 2005 and the same has been admitted and pending, which was
\nalso informed to the department by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, vide his
\nletter dated 19.7.2005 and therefore the criminal Court decision, namely,  the
\nacquittal of  the petitioner, has not become final.  Hence, the learned Senior
\nCounsel submitted that the appeal is to be treated as continuation of original
\nproceedings, and the petitioner has no right to demand for setting  aside  the
\nsuspension order during the pendency of criminal appeal and pending enquiry in
\nthe  departmental  proceedings  and consequently, the contention raised by the
\ncounsel for the petitioner that  the  order  of  extension  does  not  contain
\nreasons   and  therefore  the  non-application  of  mind  is  writ  large,  is
\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        17.     (a)  The  decision  cited  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioner in  2003  WLR 644 (C.Baskaran v.  The Managing Director, Tamil<\/a> nadu
\nState Transport Corporation, Dindigul & others) will not help  the  petitioner
\nsince  the  very  same  suspension  order, impugned in this writ petition, was
\nalready upheld by this Court by order dated 22.8.2003 in W.P.No.15495 of 2002.
\nThe only change of circumstance is  that  the  criminal  Court  acquitted  the
\npetitioner  by  giving  benefit  of  doubt  as against which a criminal appeal
\nreferred to above has been admitted and pending before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        (b)     In the decision of this Court relied on by the learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner reported in 2002 WLR  546  (A.Boopalan  v.    The
\nAssistant  Director,  Khadi  and  Village Industries and another), there was a
\ndelay in concluding the  disciplinary  proceeding  for  more  than  ten  years
\nwithout any reason on the part of the management and therefore this Court held
\nthat  the  disciplinary proceeding can be concluded and the petitioner therein
\nmay be posted to any non-sensitive post.  Here in this case, the  disciplinary
\nproceeding  was  not  proceeded  with  because  of the the request made by the
\npetitioner through his letter dated 27.3.1997 as stated  supra  and  therefore
\nthe  delay  is  attributable  only  against the petitioner and not against the
\nmanagement for not concluding the disciplinary proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
        (c)     In another decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe petitioner reported  in  1996  WLR  332  (K.Thangaraj  v.    The  Managing
\nDirector,  Dheeran  Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Limited, Tiruchirapalli)
\nthe<\/a> suspension order was quashed on the ground that the charge was too trivial
\nin nature.  The facts in that case was entirely different because the  charges
\nlevelled against the petitioner herein are very serious in nature.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)     In AIR  1984  SC  626  (Corporation  of  Nagpur v.  Ramchandra
\nG.Modak)<\/a> at paragraph 6 the question dealt with by the Supreme Court  was,  if
\nthe  accused is acquitted in the criminal case whether or not the departmental
\ninquiry pending against him would have to continue.   The  Honourable  Supreme
\nCourt  held that this is entirely the discretion of the disciplinary authority
\nand  normally  where  the  accused  is  acquitted  honourably  and  completely
\nexonerated of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental
\ninquiry on  the  very  same charges.  In the said case it is further held that
\nmerely because he is acquitted, the power of the  authority  to  continue  the
\ndepartmental inquiry is not taken away nor its discretion in any way fettered.
\nIf  the  authority feels that there is sufficient evidence and good grounds to
\nproceed with, it can certainly do so.  In  the  said  case,  the  inquiry  was
\nalmost  completed and only the final order was to be passed and taking note of
\nthe facts of the said case, the Court set aside the order  of  suspension  and
\ndirected to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
        (e)     In (1994)28 Administrative Tribunal Cases 711 (Sulekh Chand v.
\nCommissioner  of Police) the<\/a> acquittal by the criminal Court was on merits and
\nnot on the ground of giving benefit of doubt.  Hence the said decision has  no
\napplication to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
        18.     The  learned  senior  Counsel for the respondents cited a very
\nrecent decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2006) 1 MLJ 511
\n(Indian Overseas Bank v.  P.Ganesan)<\/a> for the proposition that the  proceedings
\nin  a  criminal  case  and departmental proceeding against the same person are
\nentirely different.\n<\/p>\n
        19.     The  power  of  the  department  to  place  an  officer  under
\nsuspension pending enquiry in the disciplinary proceeding is well settled.  In
\nthe decision  reported  in AIR 1972 SC 554 (P.R.Nayak v.  Union of India), the
\nHonourable Supreme Court<\/a> considered the power of suspension conferred in  Rule
\n3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and held that
\nwhen  the  rule  provides  for passing an order of ad-interim suspension of an
\nemployee during pendency of the enquiry, in respect  of  certain  charges,  is
\nwell within the power.  In the said case, the pending enquiry into the charges
\nwere  only  contemplated  and in fact, charges were not pending on the date of
\nsuspension.  Taking note of the said fact, the Honourable Supreme  Court  held
\nthat  the  order  of  suspension  being  contrary  to  Rule 3 of the All India
\nServices (Discipline  and  Appeal)  Rules,  1969,  the  suspension  order  was
\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        20.     In  this case, the sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 33 of ONGC
\nCDA Rules, 1994 as amended from  time  to  time  empowers  the  management  to
\nsuspend  the  petitioner,  when  a  disciplinary  proceeding  against  him  is
\ncontemplated or is pending.  Therefore the petitioner cannot contend that  the
\nsuspension order  presently  extended  is bad.  The said rule also enables the
\nemployee to approach the department to revoke the order of suspension  and  it
\nis  open  to the management to modify or revoke the order of suspension at its
\ndiscretion.  Therefore it is clear that the impugned order  of  suspension  as
\nextended, is sustainable in all respects.\n<\/p>\n
        21.     On  a  careful  analysis of the above cited decisions, to meet
\nthe ends of justice, there will be a direction to the respondents to  complete
\nthe  disciplinary  proceedings  within a period of six months from the date of
\nreceipt of copy of  this  order.    Petitioner  is  at  liberty  to  seek  for
\nrevocation  of  the order of suspension as provided in the CDA Rules, 1994 and
\nit is upto the responde nts to accept or reject the same.\n<\/p>\n
        22.     The writ petition is dismissed with the above direction.    No
\ncosts.  Connected WPMP No.23765 of 2005 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14\/03\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.21812 of 2005 W.P.M.P.No.23765 of 2005 M.K.Dange … Petitioner -Vs- 1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Jeevan Bharati Building, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-26T01:27:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-26T01:27:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3426,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\",\"name\":\"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-26T01:27:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-26T01:27:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-26T01:27:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006"},"wordCount":3426,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006","name":"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-26T01:27:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-dange-vs-chairman-cum-managing-on-14-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K.Dange vs Chairman-Cum-Managing on 14 March, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231176\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}