1998 INSC 0164
                                                 M.H.Devendrappa

                                                           Vs

                             Karnataka State Small Industries Devp.Corporation

                                      (Sujata V.Manohar, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      17.02.1998

                                                     JUDGMENT

MRS.SUJATA V.MANOHAR J

1.At the material time the appellant was the Assistant Manager of the respondent-Karnataka State
Small Industries Development Corporation (KSSIDC), Bangalore. He was also the President of the
Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Employees' Welfare Association,
Bangalore.

2.On 3rd of June, 1977 the appellant addressed a letter to the Governor of Karnataka on behalf of
the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Employees' Welfare Association in
which he stated that the KSSIDC Corporation was likely to be wound up on account of bad
administration, corruption and nepotism. He said that till 1977 the Corporation was running at a
profit. However, since then it was sustaining continuous losses. In the letter it was alleged that
several persons were being appointed in the Corporation who were not properly qualified at the
instance of political leaders and ministers. The letter set out some instances of these kinds of
appointments. There were also allegations in the letter about the nexus between contractors for
various projects and the management of the Corporation. There were also some allegations about
cement purchased from the corporation being diverted and various such alleged malpractices in
general terms. The letter requested the Governor to arrange to investigate the working conditions of
the said Corporation. The letter had no connection with the service conditions of the employees or
the objects of the Employees' Welfare Association.

3.On 31st of December 1977, the appellant issued a press statement which was published in a
Kannada Daily called Samyuktha Karnataka of the same date. The appellant issued a statement
welcoming the dismissal of Mr.S.C.Venkatesh, who was then the Chairman of the appellant-
Corporation from the Presidentship of the Bangalore City District Congress Committee. The
appellant also expressed the hope that political leaders would prevail upon the Government and
remove Mr.S.C.Venkatesh from the Presidentship of the respondent-Corporation thereby saving
lakhs of rupees as Mr.S.C.Venkatesh was doing illegal activities.

4.In January, 1978 the respondent wrote to the appellant seeking confirmation about the authorship
of the letter which had been sent to the Governor and asking for his explanation as to why
disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Thereupon the appellant went on leave from 9th
of January 1978 till 31st of January, 1978.The appellant absented himself from duty from 9th of
January, 1978 and on 12th of January, 1978 he sent a telegram to the respondent seeking commuted
leave from 9.1.1978 to 31.1.1978.On 1st of February, 1978 the respondent published a notice in the
newspaper calling upon the appellant to report back for duty within seven days. By letter of 9th of
February, 1978, the appellant was asked to show cause in writing as to why disciplinary action
should not be taken as per Rule 22 of the Service Rules of the Corporation. The appellant sent a
reply dated 17.2.1978.

5.Thereafter on 11.4.1978 three articles of charge were served on the appellant. The charges were to
the following effect:

6.Charge No.1 was to the effect that he had written a letter dated 3.6.1977 to the Governor of
Karnataka pointing out mismanagement in the respondent-Corporation. Being an employee of the
corporation he could not address the letter to the Governor without permission of the management.
This amounted to violation of Rule 22 of the Service Rules of the corporation, since it was
misconduct and knowingly doing something detrimental to the interests and the prestige of the
corporation.

7.Charge No.2 was to the effect that the appellant had issued a statement in Samyukta Karnataka
Kannada.