Abani Saikia vs Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. and Others

Petitioner Abani Saikia joined Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd., for short ''HPC'' in the year 1981. In 1991 he was promoted as Assistant Forest Officer. In the year 1992 the petitioner was charged with as many as 15 charges which read as follows :-

5.I Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with business or property of the Corporation.

5.II Misappropriation of the Corporation''s fund by retaining the money by way of advance or otherwise.

5.VI. Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation.

5.VII Wilful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in combination with others, of any lawful and reasonable order of his superiors.

5.VIII Absence without leave or overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation.

5.X Neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty including maligering or slowing down of work of the Corporation.

5.XI Damage to any property of the Corporation.

5.XIX Absence from the employee''s appointed place of work without permission or sufficient cause.

5.XXI Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour.

5.XXII Abetment of or attempt of abetment of any act which amounts to misconduct.

5.XXIII Utilisation of funds for any other purpose which cannot in any way be linked with efficient running of the Corporation.

5.XXXII Wilful falsification, defacement or destruction of any official document/record.

5.XXXIV Breach of any law and rules of the Corpn. or orders/ instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time.

5.XXXVI Supressing facts from the Higher authorities in relation to the corporation''s buisness or affairs.

5.XXXVII Wilful acts or omission causing damages or loss to the Corporation.

Petitioner filed his reply denying the above charges. The HPC thereafter appointed Shri Kanchan Roy, an Advocate of Calcutta as Enquiry Officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12 and 16. The other charges were found not proved. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to make his submission and the petitioner filed his reply. Thereafter ride the impugned order petitioner was dismissed from service of the Corporation. Hence the present petition.

The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated not by the Appointing authority; but by the Senior General Manager cum Chief Executive, who is the appellate authority and as such the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity of appeal and the action is arbitrary and discriminatory. Petitioner was governed by the H.P.C. Conduct Discipline & Appeal Rules and Schedule II of the said Rules shows that the General Manager is the appointing authority in case of Assistant Manager and he is also the disciplinary authority. The senior General Manage in the appellate authority and admittedly in this case the action on the disciplinary matter was taken by the Senior General Manager cum Chief Executive. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that it has not prejudiced the present petitioner in any way because when the'' disciplinary action is taken by the Senior General Manager. The Functional Director/Chairman cum Managing Director serves as the appellate authority/reviewing authority as per the above Schedule and as the petitioner could have appeal before them. In the present case, the petitioner did not file any appeal before them although it is provided under the rules. Although the action on the disciplinary matter was taken against the petitioner by the authority higher than the competent authority, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as because the appellate Forum was available to the petitioner before the Functional Director/Managing Director.

The next submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer relied on some documents which were not supplied and principles of natural justice were not complied with. The petitioner was given no opportunity to produce witnesses. The relevant records were made available by the respondent at the time of hearing. The Records shows that on the prayer of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer directed the respondent to furnish copies of all the documents to be reserved relied on by the prosecution. The petitioner merely his right to make comments on the documents produced by the Management. The order sheet of the 3rd sitting of the enquiry shows that the petitioner was allowed to inspect all the original documents and xerox copies of the documents were provided to him. I, therefore, find no force in the above submission that some documents were relied upon without furnishing copies thereof. As regards the allegation that the petitioner was not given opportunity to produce witnesses, the order sheet of the 4th sitting dated 26.12.1994 shows that the petitioner was directed by the Enquiry Officer to produce witnesses, if any, on his behalf. He was also informed that the employee may examine himself as a witness, if he so desires. The petitioner did not choose to examine any witness and thereafter he was questioned and examined by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and Another, wherein it was held that in case where the employee has not been expressly informed that he has alternative course of inspecting the documents and no copies have been supplied, the enquiry is vitiated. However, in the present case I find that the employee not only inspected the documents but also he was supplied with xerox copies of the documents. Hence the ratio as laid down as laid down in the above case is not applicable in the present case. I therefore hold that the basic principles of natural justice have been complied with.

The next submission on behalf of the petitioner is that this is a case of no evidence and the petitioner has been punished without any materials. The allegations against the petitioner were to the effect that he prepared and submitted bills for withdrawal of Rs. 1 lakh 50 thousand for the purpose of demarcation work of the Corporation ; but infact no such demarcation work was undertaken but the petitioner submitted false and fictitious bills to the tune of Rs. 1,49,528 by falsely showing showing that the demarcation work has been completed. The petitioner was therefore charged for misappropriation of public fund. According to the learned counsel for the Management the entire case was based on documentary evidence. Admittedly no witness was examined. The relevant documents were produced and admitted into evidence witness any objection. The only right deserved by the petitioner is that he is at liberty to rebut the documents or make comments on them. These admitted documents were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in recording his finding. On going through the records of the disciplinary proceeding it is seen that the documents which were relied by the Management were allowed to be inspected by the petitioner and even the xerox copies were made available to him. The petitioner did not challenge the genuineness of these documents and as such the Management did not examine any witness or author of these documents. As a matter of fact, the bills submitted by the petitioner were not in dispute. In the case of Director General Indian Council of Medical Research and Others Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Ghosh and Another, the Apex Court held that where genuineness of the documents produced during the enquiry is not in dispute, then the authors need not be examined. In the present case the genuineness of the documents was not disputed by the employee and as such the Enquiry Officer rightly relied on the same. Non examination of the authors of these documents was irrelevant. In this case it is further seen that the petitioner was questioned at length by the Enquiry Officer and each and every relied on by the prosecution was put to him and thus the employee was given a chance to rebut these documents or make his submission in respect of the contents of these documents. Record further shows that the Enquiry Officer relied upon an affidavit sworn by the petitioner employee wherein he had admitted that the demarcation work was not done. The bills submitted by the petitioner show otherwise. Petitioner has claimed money for the demarcation work which was admittedly not carried out.

On perusal of the materials produced it cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence or from the materials available on record no prudent person can come to the impugned finding in a disciplinary proceeding. Hence from the materials available on record which are supported by documentary evidence, no interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for.

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present petition is premature in the sense that the writ petitioner has not preferred any appeal although nothing prevented him from preferring the appeal. The rule of preferring an appeal was available to the petitioner and the petitioner was not deprived of the same by any action of the respondent. Under such circumstances if the petitioner has preferred or chooses not to file any appeal, no fault can be found with the employer and so far the present petitioner is concerned, I do not propose to throw out the same on that count. As there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the disciplinary proceeding and when the finding is supported by the materials on record, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs.