An inquiry into charges of misconduct against a workman must be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Standing Orders of the employer.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute between the appellant and its workmen with respect to the dismissal of one Akhileshwar Prasad, Akhileshwar Prasad was responsible for the maintenance of leave registers. In December, 1957 he was charged with regard to his willfully omitting to make entries in respect of the annual leave, sick leave and casual leave taken by him during the period from January 1, 1957 to September 28, 1957. He was also charged with altering and overwriting without the appellant s knowledge entries relating to 1957 leave and leave carried forward from the previous year 1956 in respect of certain other employees, thereby intentionally causing wrongful gain to himself and to other clerks. The last charge was with respect to his neglecting the duty of keeping in safe custody the leave register for 1956 which was missing. Akhileshwar Prasad denied his responsibility with respect to these charges and consequently an inquiry was made against him.

2. Under the Standing orders of the appellant an elaborate procedure is provided for inquiries into charges of misconduct like the present. The charge has to be read out to the employee & all witnesses in support of the charge are to be examined in his presence unless he deliberately absents himself, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee charged is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses if he declines to do so a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee has liberty to produce such wit-nessesas he wishes, unless he refuses to do so, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. After the evidence is over, the branch manager has to make a brief appraisal of the evidence recorded and has to record his conclusion, and the punishment if any intended to be imposed by him in writing. In doing so he has to take into consideration the service record of the employee concerned and has to record what such employee has to say against the intended punishment. He then passes the order of punishment in writing recording the misconduct proved and the punishment imposed in the service record of the employee concerned.

3. The main contention on behalf of the respondents was that the procedure prescribed for an inquiry was not followed and therefore the dismissal of Akhileshwar Prasad was invalid. It appears from the record of the inquiry proceeding that after two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant there was a dispute as to the cross-examination of the second witness. In consequence of this Akhileshwar Prasad declined to cross-examine the second witness further and withdrew from the inquiry. Thereafter it seems that the inquiry was closed and the branch manager passed the following order against Akhileshwar Prasad.:-

"Akhileshwar Prasad dismissed from service under Branch Standing Order 17 (d) with effect from November 27, 1957. This decision has been communicated to him by letter No. P/64/88 dated December 11, 1957."

A reference was made to the labour court by the Government of Bihar on February 25, 1958, asking it to decide whether the dismissal of Shri Akhileshwar Prasad was justified and if not, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or any other relief, the labour court held that Akhileshwar Prasad was incharge of the have register. It also held that the inquiry was not carried out as required by the Rules and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid. It then went into the question whether the appellant had justified the order of dismissal before it & came to the conclusion that though there was some negligence on the part of Akhileshwar Prasad, it was not such as to bring, the case within Standing Order 16(d), (k) or (1) with which he was charged. However it held that as the omissions were also in respect of Akhileshwar Prasad s own leave account of which he should have been more particular, it ordered his reinstatement with only 50 per cent, of his wages for the period of his ab