Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Limited & Another - Appellants
Versus
Avishek Sarkar & Others - Respondents
APO No. 151 of 2023, IA GA No. 1 of 2023, WPO No. 487 of 2021
Decided On : 20-08-2024
For the Appellants : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ms. Sarmila Das.
For the Respondent: Mr. Indranil Chakraborty, Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Ms. Esha Banerjee, Mr. Vaskar Pal.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a charged employee must demonstrate actual prejudice from alleged breaches of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings for relief to be granted.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Service Rules - Rule 90 (iv) - The court discussed the violation of service rules and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for unbiased inquiry and the requirement for the inquiry officer to not be the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The private respondent, an assistant engineer, faced disciplinary action for misrepresenting government subsidy in agricultural instrument sales. The disciplinary proceedings were challenged on grounds of bias and violation of natural justice, leading to a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in violation of natural justice, as the respondent failed to demonstrate any real prejudice caused by the alleged breaches. The inquiry officer's actions were deemed appropriate.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice and service rules, particularly regarding the appointment of the inquiry officer and the representation rights of the charged employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry officer's appointment did not violate service rules, and the respondent did not establish that any alleged breaches of natural justice caused him prejudice, thus upholding the disciplinary action.
Result: The court set aside the single judge's order and restored the disciplinary punishment against the private respondent.
JUDGMENT :
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. Appellants have assailed the judgement and order dated July 30, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPO 487 of 2021.
2. By the impugned judgement and order, learned Single Judge has held that the disciplinary proceeding as against the private respondent herein was contemplated and concluded in a preconceived mind, in derogation of the service rules and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the learned Single Judge has set aside the charge-sheet, enquiry report, order of punishment and directed reinstatement of the private respondent with all consequential benefits including back wages.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has referred to the events occurring prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet as also events subsequent thereto. He has contended that, the private respondent was appointed as assistant engineer. He had joined the Purshurah office of the appellant No. 1 on September 1, 2024 and became the first officer of such office on February 18, 2015. Private respondent had asked for permission from Project Manager to collect booking for agricultural instruments at the rate of Rs.500/- from intending purchasers on April 4, 2016. He has contended that, private respondent suppressed from the project manager the fact that the farmers had been mis-represented about payment of Government subsidy against such purchase.
4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has pointed out that, permission as sought for by the private respondent was accorded on May 2, 2016. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 had received a complaint about false promise of Government subsidy on May 31, 2017. A show-cause notice had been issued to the private respondent on August 30, 2017. Private respondent had submitted a reply on September 4, 2017. Thereafter the private respondent had been suspended on September 8, 2017.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, on October 23, 2017, newspapers carried reports about illegalities in the subject office of the appellant No. 1. Private respondent had filed a writ petition being WPA 6714 of 2019 challenging his suspension. By an order dated April 4, 2019, the Court had directed expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceeding. Subsequently, an Enquiry Committee had been formed by the Managing Director on April 9, 2019. Enquiry Committee had issued notice of appearance to the parties on April 12, 2019. Private respondent had appeared before the Enquiry Committee on April 26, 2019. Thereafter, an order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years had been passed as against the private respondent and the order of suspension was withdrawn on May 3, 2019.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has submitted that, private respondent challenged the order of punishment dated May 3, 2019 by way of a writ petition being WPA 18117 of 2019. By an order dated September 27, 2019, such writ petition had been disposed of by directing disposal of the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law and setting aside the order of punishment. Subsequent thereto, charge-sheet had been issued along with an order of suspension on October 22, 2019 against the private respondent. Private respondent had submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on November 7, 2019. Appellants had appointed an advocate as the Enquiry Officer on November 26, 2019.
7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants has taken us through the minutes of the sittings of the Enquiry Officer. He has contended that, request for being represented by an advocate was declined by the Enquiry Officer as the presenting officer was not an advocate. So far as request for summoning defence witnesses is concerned, he has pointed out that the Enquiry Officer noted that, Enquiry Officer did not possess requisite power to summon a witness. However, Enquiry Officer had permitted the private respondent to call any defence
