The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a disciplinary proceeding, the charged officer must be provided with an opportunity to defend against the evidence presented by the prosecution, and the enquiry must be fair and reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The petitioner was employed by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (hereinafter “BHEL”, for short) as an Engineer Trainee. Following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 24/8/2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The order of removal was carried in an appeal before the Appellate Authority; however, the appeal stood dismissed by an order dated 18/12/2017. Aggrieved by rejection of the appeal, thereby confirming the order of removal from service, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority dated 24/8/2017 and 18/12/2017, respectively. The petitioner, upon amendment of the writ petition, has also prayed for reinstatement, back wages and continuity in service.

3. The memorandum of charge-sheet dated 30/4/2016 drawn up against the petitioner contained the Article of Charge, at Annexure-I thereto, wherein it was alleged as follows :

“Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe, while working as Engineer Trainee (Purchase), PS-WR, Nagpur in 2012-13, is responsible for harassing M/s. Pressurejet Systems Ltd. (L-1 Vendor) by demanding illegal gratification for placement of Purchase Order against open tender no. 12013E (NIT no.11945 dated 25.05.2012) for procurement of five Hydraulic Pressure Test Pumps of 1000 Kg/Cm2.

By his aforesaid acts, Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a public servant and thereby violated Rule 4(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the BHEL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 1975. He acted in a dishonest manner and committed acts subversive of discipline in violation of Company’s Rules. His above acts constitute misconduct in terms of Rule 5(1), 5(20) of the BHEL CDA Rules, 1975.”

The statement of allegations at Annexure-II, insofar as the same is relevant for the purpose of decision on this writ petition, reads as follows :

“1.10.1 Shri Vishal Shah, Managing Director of M/s. Pressurejet Systems Ltd. vide letter dated nil (received on 31.07.2012) addressed to Shri Santosh Nair, AGM (Purchase), PS-WR, informed that after bid 4 opening Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe approached them and asked 2% of order value and he tried to encash his position.

1.10.2 The above fact is also supported by the transcripts of the recordings of the conversation of Shri Umesh Eknat Agalawe with Shri Vishal Shah, Managing Director, M/s. Pressurejet Systems Ltd., on 23.07.2012. It is observed that there was demand of bribe by Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe by taking the name of Committee Members and the then General Manager (P&P), PS-WR. He told Shri Vishal Shah that as per 2% the amount would be Rs.1.10 lakh. Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe stated that “50 GM Sahib ko jayenge aur 20-20 committee members ko jayenge ..haan bees bees hazaar.

1.10.3 During the conversation, Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe, Engineer Trainee, PS-WR stated that “nahina hia ap mujhe de dijiye, I will distribute them”. He also told that “aap mujhe de dijiye, main receive kar loonga … theekhai sham ko main le loonga … mere office ke baaju main...”

2.0 From the recorded conversation between Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe, Engineer Trainee, PS-WR and Shri Vishal Shah, Managing Director, M/s. Pressurejet Systems Ltd. on 10.07.2012 & 23.07.2012, it is established that there was demand of illegal gratification from the vendor.

2.1 The Forensic Voice Examination Report dated 07.01.2013 of CFSL, regarding the above recordings confirms that there was no form of tempering detected in the relevant audio recordings and the voice in the recording is the probable voice of Shri Umesh Eknath Agalawe, Engineer Trainee.”

The list of documents by which the charge levelled against the petitioner was sought to be established, at Annexure-III, incl