Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
I.A.Ansari, J.
Akshay Mazumdar -Appellant
Versus
Chairman Assam State Text Book Production and Publication Ltd.and Ors. -Resopndent
Civil Rule No. 3234 of 2901
Decided On : 01-01-2003
Government Corporation - Disciplinary Proceeding - Rules 1964, Regulations 1988 - The court considered the case of a petitioner who was a managerial staff of a Government Corporation and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rules 1964 and Regulations 1988. The court found that the Corporation, though not formally adopting the Regulations and Rules, could legally proceed against the petitioner under these provisions. However, the court held that the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer violated procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The court set aside the penalty imposed and the enquiry report, allowing the respondents to take permissible disciplinary action against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a managerial staff of a Government Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rules 1964 and Regulations 1988. The Corporation, though not formally adopting the Regulations and Rules, proceeded against the petitioner under these provisions. The petitioner was suspended, issued a show-cause notice, and an enquiry was conducted behind the petitioner's back. The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of severe warning on the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Corporation could legally proceed against the petitioner under the Regulations and Rules, but the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer violated procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The court set aside the penalty imposed and the enquiry report, allowing the respondents to take permissible disciplinary action against the petitioner.
Issues: Violation of procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice, applicability of Regulations and Rules not formally adopted by the Corporation, denial of opportunity to the petitioner to prepare his defense, examination of witnesses behind the back of the petitioner, non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the petitioner, non-production of relevant records by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The Corporation could legally proceed against the petitioner under the Regulations and Rules, but the violation of procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice by the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed and the enquiry report.
Final Decision: The court set aside the penalty imposed and the enquiry report, allowing the respondents to take permissible disciplinary action against the petitioner.
When a Government Corporation, which has not formally adopted disciplinary rules, regulations, executive instructions, etc., initiates a disciplinary proceeding against one of its managerial staff' under a set of rules applicable to Government employees of the State, whether resort to such rules is permissible in law and if the disciplinary authority does not, while taking action under such set of rules, follow the procedural safeguards laid down in such rules, appoints an enquiry officer, who examines witnesses behind the back of the delinquent, one of such witnesses being even from outside the list of witnesses furnished to the delinquent, without assigning any reason therefore, and when the disciplinary authority, without furnishing enquiry report of the such an enquiry and without caring to find out from, or listen to, the delinquent as to how the enquiry was really conducted, imposes a penalty not prescribed under the rules, so resorted to, can findings of such an enquiry and/or the penalty imposed £e allowed by a writ Court to stand good on record are some disquietening features of the present writ petition.
2. In the above backdrop, let me consider the case of the petitioner, which, briefly stated, runs as follows:-
The petitioner, who holds a post-graduate degree in Arts and a diploma in Printing Technology, entered into the service of Assam State Text Book Production and Publication Corporation Limited, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Corporation") as Production Officer by order, dated 9.8.73 (Anenxure-I to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 2, namely, Managing Director of the said Corporation. The service of the petitioner was regularised by order, dated 18.4.79, issued by respondent No. 2. The post of Production Officer was subsequently redesignated as Manager (Production). Being a Govt. Corporation, the said Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the State Government. It serves public interest is vitally connected with the welfare activities of the State Government. This Corporation is, therefore, a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Though the petitioner rendered satisfactory service for more than 14 years i.e. from 1973 to 1987, he was placed under suspension with effect from 28.8.87 vide resolution No. 5 (Anenxure-V to the writ petition) adopted at the Board meeting of the/said Corporation. In course of time, this suspension order was revoked, vide order, dated 26.11.91 (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 2. By letter, dated 10.5.94 (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner was asked to show-cause under Regulation 47 of the Employees' Service Regulations, 1988 of the Assam State Text Book Production and Publication Corporation limited (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations 1988") read with Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1964") as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Regulation 46 of the Regulations 1988 read with Rule 7 of the Rules 1964 should not be inflicted on him on the basis of the charges framed against him and the statements of allegations appended thereto. By his letter, dated 22.5.87 (Annexure-XLA to the writ petition) the petitioner made a request for allowing him to inspect the documents on the basis of which the charges had been framed against him. This request of the petitioner was not adequately acceded to and with the limitation so imposed the petitioner submitted his reply, dated 19.5.94 (Annexure-XII to the writ petition) refuting the charges levelled against him. The said Corporation appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry by order, dated 10.3.96 (Annexure-III to the writ petition). The said Corporation also appointed one Presiding Officer by a letter, dated 28.3.95 (Annexure-IIIA to the writ petition), but the petitioner was not given any defence assistance causing thereby ser
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
