Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 140
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
S.K. Taqi
Versus
The Cement Corporation of India
W.P.(C) No. 7748 of 2010
Decided On : 31-01-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M.Y. Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Arun Birbal, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings and in departmental proceedings is different, and the appointment of an independent enquiry officer is permissible.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s), Rule 30 of CCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - The court discussed the fairness and propriety of the departmental enquiry proceedings, the appointment of an independent enquiry officer, the requirement of furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent, and the proportionality of punishment imposed upon the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Cement Corporation of India Limited, was dismissed from service for furnishing false certificates and making false declarations about the utilization of a Housing Building Advance loan for construction of his house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent was fair and proper, and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was not shockingly disproportionate.
Issues: The issues included the fairness and propriety of the departmental enquiry proceedings, the appointment of an independent enquiry officer, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings and in departmental proceedings is different, and the appointment of an independent enquiry officer was in favor of the petitioner. The court also found that the punishment imposed was justified due to the serious misconduct of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their respective costs.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the industrial award passed by the Labour Court dated 31.03.2010 in ID No.2323/95, whereby the Labour Court X has answered the following reference made by the appropriate government against the petitioner/workman:
“Whether the dismissal of services of Shri S.K. Taqi is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what directions are necessary in this regard?”
2. The petitioner also assails the order dated 07.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court in the course of the proceedings before it, whereby the Labour Court has ruled that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner by the respondent is fair and proper.
3. The admitted position is that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent Cement Corporation of India Limited (CCIL) since 1971. At the relevant time, he was serving as the Chief Sales Supervisor. He was also associated with the activities of the Cement Corporation Employees Union (Regd.). In February 1986, the petitioner applied for a Housing Building Advance (HBA) loan for construction of his house at his native place Jais, U.P. As per the relevant rules of the respondent, a loan of Rs.90,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, payable in three installments of Rs.27,000/-, Rs.36,000/- and Rs.27,000/-. The loan was repayable by way of deduction from the petitioners salary in equated monthly installment of Rs.680/-, starting 18 months after the payment of the first installment.
4. The petitioner was released the first installment of Rs.27,000/- on 28.02.1986. Before the release of the second installment, the petitioner provided to the respondent a certificate certifying the raising of construction by the petitioner to show the utilization of the first installment of the HBA loan for the purpose for which it was taken. On the basis of the said certification, the second installment of Rs.36,000/- was also released to the petitioner.
5. It appears that the respondent conducted an on the spot verification of the construction site on 4/5.09.1989, which revealed that no construction of any sort, or even excavation work, had been carried out on the plot of land in question. Consequently, the respondent vide memorandum dated 26.03.1990 issued a charge sheet to the petitioner alleging furnishing of false certificate and making false declaration about having spent a sum of Rs.27,000/- on the construction of his house without, in fact, carrying out any such construction work. The petitioner was alleged to have exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an employee of the respondent corporation.
6. Since the petitioner denied the charges leveled against him, enquiry proceedings were initiated by the respondent. One Sh. Sheo Raj Singh, IPS (Retd.) was appointed as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer made his report dated 11.06.1990 holding that the petitioner had submitted a false certificate of utilization of the amount of Rs.27,000/-(first installment of HBA) for construction of house upto plinth level; that the petitioner, based on the false certificate of utilization of amount of first installment, drew the second installment of Rs.36,000/- of HBA; that the petitioner in violation of the rules of the respondent misused the fund sanctioned for the purpose of construction of house – which were duly drawn by him, and; that the petitioner did not construct anything on the plot of land for which he had taken the loan, within the period of 18 months, as stipulated in the HBA sanction order. All the three charges leveled against him were held to have been conclusively established.
7. The disciplinary authority of the respondent, on the basis of the enquiry report – which was accepted by him, passed an order of punishment dated 12.06.1990 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal a
