Narendranath. Vs. Neethu

[ram mohan reddy j.] service - bescom, imposing a personal liability on the officers of the company-allegation that the officers failed to return the scrap and unused material including transformer oil and failed transformers - recovery proceedings against the officers including the petitioner - prosecution under section 304-a of ipc - challenge to - employer's action against its employees - assignment of duties and responsibilities - accountability of employees - judicial review - held, the power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only where it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or vitiated due to malafides. the court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and suggest the manner in which the employees should assign duties, responsibilities and accountability of its employees for the purpose of improving efficiency in administration. - the policy of the employer to make its employees personally liable for certain actions in the discharge of duties is within the realm of administration and falls within the exclusive domain of the employer. what duties and responsibilities are attached to a particular post for improving the efficiency of the administration is the preserve of the employer. - further held, duties, responsibilities and accountability go hand in hand in the discharge of duties in an organization. it is for the employer to decide the staffing pattern and the duties and responsibilities attached to the posts. in the instant case, the employer, in exercise of his discretion has imposed responsibilities attached to the post of assistant engineer. the action of the employer is not shown to be contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision nor patently arbitrary or vitiated due to malafides. (paras 5, 6) writ petition is dismissed. .....ourselves of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india. anxiety of the legislature to prevent protraction of proceedings by challenge of interim orders passed during trial is reflected clearly in the bar against entertainment of revision petitions against interlocutory orders. of course it is well settled that the bar of a revision does not fetter the constitutional powers of this court under article 227 of the constitution of india. where this court is satisfied that a stitch in time may save nine, such jurisdiction can certainly be invoked. but, we must be careful, cautious and discreet in the invocation of such extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under article 227. 6. we do not want to express any final opinion on the validity of exts.p4 to p6 orders. we feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner must be relegated to challenge those orders if necessary along with the final orders that will be passed in the o.ps. if found necessary, the petitioner can mount the challenge against those orders in the appeal against final orders passed in the o.ps. we are not persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. in coming to this conclusion, we have alertly considered all circumstances. 7. this petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations.