Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SATYA NARAYAN CHAKRABARTY
SRI SWAPAN RAY - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. - Respondent
W. P. M. P. 1557 Of 1987
Decided On : 11/15/1995
NATURAL JUSTICE - Departmental enquiry - Violation - Domestic enquiry - Principles of natural justice - Non-compliance - Effect - Removal from service - Held to be illegal and perverse.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Flight Purser in the services of the respondent, was removed from service and his appeal against the said order was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the orders on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceedings and that the enquiry was vitiated by bias and prejudice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses or produce documents in his defense, and the enquiry officer took into consideration irrelevant and extraneous matters. The court also found that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority failed to apply their minds to the relevant materials and did not consider the petitioner's defense.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend himself? 3. Whether the enquiry officer took into consideration irrelevant and extraneous matters? 4. Whether the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority applied their minds to the relevant materials and considered the petitioner's defense?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice are fundamental to a fair hearing and include the right to be heard, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to produce evidence in one's defense. In a domestic enquiry, these principles must be complied with in order to ensure that the proceedings are fair and impartial. 2. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses or produce documents in his defense. This violated his right to a fair hearing and rendered the enquiry proceedings null and void. 3. The enquiry officer took into consideration irrelevant and extraneous matters, such as the petitioner's arrest by the police and his involvement in a business dispute. These matters were not germane to the charges against the petitioner and should not have been considered by the enquiry officer. 4. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority failed to apply their minds to the relevant materials and did not consider the petitioner's defense. This failure to consider the relevant evidence rendered their decisions arbitrary and unreasonable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to initiate a fresh disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The court also directed the respondents to pay the petitioner 50% of his back wages for the period during which he was not allowed to work.
( 1 ) THIS application is directed against an order dated March 17/18, 1987 and the order dated September 11, 1986 whereby and whereunder the petitioner who at the material time had been working as Flight Purser in the services of the respondent No. l was removed from services and the appeal preferred by him against the said order, was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE Petitioner is said to be a chronic patient of Bronchial Asthma. He felt sick on January 24 and informed the office that he would not be able to attend his duties on that date. The petitioner joined his office on January 26, 1982. On January 27 some Custom officials visited the flat of the petitioner and searched the premises and seized various documents, as a result whereof the petitioner allegedly started suffering from nervous breakdown. His Chronic asthmatic trouble also relapsed that as such he was not in a position to attend to the duties. He informed the' drives of respondent that the matter be reported to the respondent No. l. The petitioner was arrested on January 27, 1982 and was produced before the Magistrate on January 28. He was granted bail on January 29, 1982. The petitioner' having been feeling discomfiture due to asthmatic trouble consulted a local physician. He also allegedly informed the Operation Department in writing about his illness. He also wrote two other letters to Operation Manager and Senior Medical Officer under Certificate of Posting on the same date i. e. on January 30, 1982. According to the petitioner he was later on examined by the Doctor of the respondent No. 1 who permitted him to continue to obtain medical treatment from his private Doctor. The endorsement and the medical card of the petitioner is said to be lying with the respondents.
( 3 ) SOON about March 30/31, 1982 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner levelling two charges against him. The first charge was in relation to his alleged absence from duty with effect from January 1982 and making of a false statement in the leave application dated January 30, 1982 to the effect that he was sick from January 25, 1982 whereas in his letter dated January 30, 1982 he has stated that he suddenly became sick at around 12 noon on January 27, 1982 as also on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly failed to produce the report after a fortnight of his purported sickness which is said to be a misconduct under various provisions of the Standing Order.
( 4 ) IN relation of the said charges the following documents were to be relied upon:" 1. Your attendance record from January 25, 1982 to February 14, 1982. 2. Your application dated January 30, 1982 3. Your leave application dated February 24, 1982 4. Circular No. CAL:per:randr: 1:3547 dated September 3, 1974. 5. Circular No. CAL:per:randr: 5548 dated January 15/19, 1981. 6. Circular No. 511/81- (17) dated January 25, 1982. 7. Any other witness or evidence having direct or indirect hearing to the charge"
( 5 ) THE second charge as against the petitioner stated that he was arrested by the Police under Sec. 4 of the Customs Act on January 27, 1982 and was granted bail on January 29, 1982 but he did not inform his Department about the said arrest which constituted a misconduct for violation of the following provisions of the Standing Order. Clause 1: Every employee of the Corporation shall at all time maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conduct himself in a manner conducive to the best interest, credit and prestige of the Corporation. Clause 16 (8): Breach of any Standing Order or any law or rules applicable to the establishment. Clause 16 (13) : Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour in the premises of the establishment. The evidence in support of the said charges were to the following effect: 1. Letter No. SL (VI)-44:82p dated February 18, 1982 from Asstt. Collector of Customs and Supdt. Preventive Service. 2. Circular No. Cal/per/randr/1/6551 dated January 5, 1978.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
