Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Sandeep Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1540 of 2014
Decided On : 31-05-2021
DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - CHARGES - INQUIRY OFFICER - APPOINTMENT - PROCEDURE - EVIDENCE - FINDINGS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - RELIEF - [CDR Rules, 1976, R. 31(3), 4(i)(ii), 12(4), 26(i), (v), (xviii), (xxiii)]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Officer (Forex) in respondent company, was removed from service on charges of unauthorized foreign exchange transactions with another employee, Manoj Bahuguna, and failure to inform superiors. Petitioner challenged the removal order, alleging violations of natural justice and procedural irregularities in the inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
1. Appointment of Inquiry Officer: The Inquiry Officer, a retired employee appointed as Consultant, was competent to conduct the inquiry as per Rule 31(3) of the CDR Rules. Petitioner's plea of bias was rejected as no objection was raised before the start of the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer had acted within his jurisdiction. 2. Engagement of Legal Practitioner: The respondent's refusal to allow petitioner to engage a legal practitioner was justified as the Presenting Officer was not a legally trained person, as per Rule 4(i) of the CDR Rules. 3. Inquiry Procedure and Evidence: The Inquiry Officer's findings were held to be perverse and unsustainable due to lack of evidence, failure to discuss evidence, and violation of the prescribed procedure. The Inquiry Officer had abdicated his responsibility by not recording reasons for his conclusions and had cross-examined the petitioner without recording the management witnesses' statements. 4. Partly Proven Charge: The Court found that a part of Charge 3, regarding petitioner's failure to report Manoj Bahuguna's dealings with a third party, was proved based on petitioner's own statements.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, a retired employee working as a Consultant, was valid. 2. Whether the respondent's refusal to allow petitioner to engage a legal practitioner during the inquiry was justified. 3. Whether the Inquiry Officer's findings were perverse and unsustainable due to lack of evidence, failure to discuss evidence, and violation of the prescribed procedure. 4. Whether any of the charges against the petitioner were proved based on the evidence on record.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Appointment of Inquiry Officer: A retired employee appointed as a Consultant can act as an Inquiry Officer under Rule 31(3) of the CDR Rules, provided they are competent and impartial. Petitioner's failure to raise an objection to the Inquiry Officer's appointment before the start of the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer's actions within his jurisdiction negate any plea of bias. 2. Engagement of Legal Practitioner: Under Rule 4(i) of the CDR Rules, a charged officer can engage a legal practitioner only if the Presenting Officer is a legally trained person. In this case, the Presenting Officer was not legally trained, and the respondent's refusal to allow petitioner to engage a legal practitioner was justified. 3. Inquiry Procedure and Evidence: An Inquiry Officer must record reasons for his conclusions and follow the prescribed procedure during the inquiry. Failure to do so renders the findings perverse and unsustainable. Cross-examining the petitioner without recording the management witnesses' statements is a violation of the prescribed procedure. 4. Partly Proven Charge: Based on petitioner's own statements, the Court found that a part of Charge 3, regarding petitioner's failure to report Manoj Bahuguna's dealings with a third party, was proved.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned removal order and directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order based on the partly proven charge against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority was directed to take further action as per law, and the petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge any part of the order in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"a) issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus quashing the Impugned Orders dated 25.09.2013 and 09.01.2014 as illegal, unfair, arbitrary and unjust and directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and continuity of service;
b) pass any such order or further orders that this as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fair in the facts of the case in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been an employee of the respondent company for 15 years from 1998 till September 25, 2013; i.e., the date, on which, he was illegally removed from service. The petitioner was appointed on the permanent post as Junior Supervisor (Travel), Foreign Exchange in non-unionised Supervisory Grade - I on December 18, 2007. The petitioner was on probation vide appointment letter December 18, 2007. The services of the petitioner were confirmed vide letter dated December 12, 2008, with effect from December 18, 2008. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Travel), Foreign Exchange with effect from April 01, 2011 vide letter dated November 10, 2011. His post re-designated as "Officer (Forex)" with effect from July 01, 2012.
3. It is the petitioner's case that one Manoj Bahuguna, Officer (Travel), who was also an employee of the Respondent for 10 years, working at its facility at the RITES office at Gurgaon, Haryana called up the petitioner on April 02, 2013 seeking US$ 5,000/- for use by RITES' General Manager on credit basis. This request was declined by the petitioner as such a transaction was not provided for in the guidelines. On the same day Manoj Bahuguna again called the petitioner and stated that for his requirement of foreign exchange, he had approached M/s. Weizmann Forex Ltd. ("Weizmann" for short) and requested the petitioner to give a positive identification/reference in case they contacted the petitioner. A few hours thereafter one Rajeev of Weizmann telephonically enquired from the petitioner as to whether Manoj Bahuguna was in fact an employee of the respondent; to which the petitioner replied in the affirmative and stated that Manoj Bahuguna was a permanent employee of the respondent and was currently posted at the RITES office to take care of travel requirements of their officials. While the petitioner did not have much interaction with Manoj Bahuguna, he obliged as a matter of professional courtesy to a colleague who had been working in the company for the last 10 years.
4. Thereafter on April 16, 2013 he again received a telephonic call from Rajeev of Weizmann stating that they were about to raise an invoice for US$ 30,000/-, allegedly delivered to Manoj Bahuguna. The petitioner went to the office of Weizmann and impressed upon them, to not raise such an invoice, clarifying that Manoj Bahuguna had not acted in his official capacity. On the basis of clarification of the petitioner, no such invoice was raised by Weizmann and the latter has not complained against the petitioner for any infraction or wrong doing.
5. On April 17, 2013 the petitioner then intimated his immediate superior, Sandhya Malik (petitioner's reporting officer) and Pukhraj Sabarwal (Travel and Tours) of the respondent company. He was directed to record a statement in writing about the incident and in good faith the petitioner gave such a statement. The officers of the respondent situated in Delhi, namely Anil Gaba and V.B. Sharma checked stock of the foreign currency and inspected the books of accounts of the petitioner and found the same to be in order.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that, on April 18, 2013 two officers, one Sandeep Das from Accounts branch and one Mr. Sen from Legal branch from the Head Office in Kolkata came to Delhi and interacted with the petitioner without informing the petitioner that they were authorized to conduct a formal preliminary in
An inquiry officer must adhere to natural justice principles and cannot conduct proceedings devoid of due process; failure of these rights undermines any disciplinary action taken.
Allegations of bias against an Inquiry Officer must be substantiated with evidence; mere assertions are insufficient to quash proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a formal inquiry in matters involving the imposition of a major penalty, with the burden of proof on the Establishment to produ....
The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.
The judgment establishes the principle that bias must be proven with evidence and prompt action is necessary to address alleged bias incidents.
Section 7(4), Authority is empowered to appoint officers and employees, for efficient performance of its functions.
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
