The employer has the authority to impose punishment on employees as long as it aligns with relevant rules and legal principles, and the High Court's interference is limited to exceptional cases where the decision shocks the conscience of the court.

JUDGMENT

Amrita Sinha, J. - The final order dated 30th December, 2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner from service, is impugned in the instant writ petition. The petitioner challenges the said order of dismissal inter alia, on the grounds of bias, perversity of evidence, non-application of mind and mala fide on the part of the respondents.

FACTS:

2. The petitioner was serving as Assistant Engineer (Chemical) in Durgapur Chemicals Ltd. hereinafter referred to as "the Company". On 11th November, 2010 when the petitioner went to the plant laboratory of the Company at about 10:40 a.m. he was assaulted by some other officers of the Company. According to the petitioner he was severely beaten and harassed, both physically and mentally. The petitioner had to be treated by the in-house doctors of the hospital of the Company. He drew attention of the Director-in-Charge of the Company by a letter dated 11th November, 2010 and also lodged a police complaint on 15th November, 2010.

3. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet-cum-suspension order dated 13th November, 2010 in view of the incidents which took place on 11th November, 2010. The petitioner controverted the allegations made in the aforesaid charge sheet by his letter dated 16th November, 2010. A supplementary article of charges was issued against him on 19th November, 2010. The petitioner replied to the supplementary charge sheet by his letter dated 6th December, 2010.

4. The Director-in-Charge of the Company by a communication dated 14th December, 2010 advised the petitioner to present himself in the enquiry to be held on 24th December, 2010. The name of the inquiry officer was mentioned in the said communication. The petitioner contested the inquiry proceeding which commenced on 24th December, 2010 and continued till 8th November, 2014. He was served with the inquiry report dated 16th September, 2015 by a memo dated 23rd September, 2015. The inquiry officer opined that the allegations levelled against the petitioner stood proved.

5. The Director-in-Charge of the Company, being the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the records of the case, imposed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service by a memo dated 30th December, 2015.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

6. The initial charge sheet-cum-order of suspension reveals only bare facts and does not impute any charges against the petitioner. The charge sheet is vague, incomplete, unauthorised and hence non est in the eye of law. The list of documents and the list of witnesses in support of the alleged charges were not supplied to the petitioner. The Company, after receiving the reply of the petitioner in response to the initial charge sheet issued a supplementary article of charges whereby the Company has tried to fill-in the lacunae which were pointed out by the petitioner in his reply to the initial charge sheet.

7. The supplementary charge sheet also did not specify the acts of alleged misconduct or violation of the Rules by the petitioner. The supplementary charge sheet was equally vague, not clear, ambiguous and suffered from non-application of mind. The witnesses mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet were deliberately included as the said persons intended to take revenge against the petitioner because he protested against the formation and/or election of an association of officers comprising of those witnesses. The petitioner argued that due to non-existence of any service Rules of the Company the charges levelled against the petitioner is liable to be treated as non est in law.

CHALLENGE AGAINST THE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER:

8. The acts of the petitioner which were allegedly held to be proved against him in the inquiry proceeding were completely different from the charges levelled against the petitioner in the article of charges.

9. The inquiry officer failed to appreciate the true intent and purport of the evidence put forth