Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 327
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.
Syed Riazul Haque S/o Late Syed Rafiqul Haque – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2520 of 2012
Decided On : 26-06-2020
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Enquiry Report - ASWC - Regulation No. 12(v), Regulation No. 42(ii), Regulation No. 32 and 33(6) of the Assam State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1989, Assam Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965, ASWC Circular No. 180 dated 6.2.1975, Clause No. 13 of Schedule of storage charges vide Memo No. AWC 6/74/ST/Pt-VI/FSC/170 dated 26.3.2008 - The court set aside and quashed the enquiry report, penalty imposed, and other consequential orders due to the violation of principles of natural justice and bias in the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of ASWC, was charged with various misconducts and faced departmental proceedings. The petitioner challenged the enquiry report and penalties imposed, alleging bias, lack of access to relevant documents, and violation of natural justice principles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority went beyond the charges and relied on irrelevant materials. The appellate authority also considered extraneous factors. The court held that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice and set aside the enquiry report and penalties.
Issues: The issues included bias in the proceedings, lack of access to relevant documents, and reliance on extraneous factors by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority, and appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice and fairness. It emphasized that the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority should not have relied on irrelevant materials and should have allowed access to relevant documents. The appellate authority should not have considered extraneous factors.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the enquiry report and penalties, and directed the restoration of the petitioner's seniority and benefits within 60 days.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Roy.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Chakraborty.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Warehousing Corporation (ASWC), the respondent No. 2. Mr. Roy mainly challenged the enquiry report dated 4.8.2010 on the basis of which penalties were imposed on the petitioner due to following grounds:
(a) The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry by taking into consideration some irrelevant facts and documents which were not mentioned in the charge memo and the list of documents relied by the disciplinary authority.
(b) The departmental proceeding was initiated on the charge mainly involving the mode of functioning of the Managing Director who is incidentally the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. One of the witnesses from the management side produced a statement which was recorded by the said disciplinary authority in order to supplement evidence against the petitioner. Under such circumstance the disciplinary authority had influenced the enquiry officer with his predetermined mind that the petitioner is punished at any cost.
(c) The financial involvement and the recovery against the loss caused to the corporation are merely guess work inasmuch the facts and figures of the recovery amount nor the principal amount of 17 lacs and odd as mentioned in the second show-cause notice were not part of charge memo.
(d) The petitioner was deprived from inspecting the records more specifically the one relied by the disciplinary authority against charge No. 5.
(e) The enquiry officer was biased which clearly reflects from the conclusion arrived in the enquiry report wherein it is apparent that the enquiry officer took into consideration facts beyond the records.
(f) The departmental proceeding was initiated for wrecking vengeance on the petitioner which could be seen from the enquiry report and the penalty imposed. Said intent is far more clear when the Managing Director, the disciplinary authority refused to grant earned leave on medical ground to the petitioner subsequent to imposition of the penalty. Further the petitioner was down graded from the higher position to the lower one in the gradation list of class II officers and staff of ASWC w.e.f. 4.4.2011. Accordingly Mr. Roy sought for setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition and the one affirmed by the appellate authority in the departmental proceeding no. 1/10 against the petitioner.
2. Mr. L.P. Sarma learned counsel for the respondent Corporation raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition the petitioner failed to bring on record any specific instance of violation of the principle of natural justice. Charge No. 5 was not at all traversed by the petitioner in his reply against the show-cause notice dated 8.6.2010. Further the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of the enquiry officer was rejected and the same was not put to challenge rather the petitioner participated in the enquiry conducted by the said enquiry officer, respondent no. 5 against whom the petitioner made specific allegation of bias. However the said allegation could not be proved. The enquiry report was furnished to him alongwith the show-cause notice. The report of the Chartered Accountant was brought on record at the appellate stage which did not form the part of the enquiry report. As such it was his contention that if at all the said irregularity is considered, de novo enquiry in respect of charge no. 5 may be allowed. Further it was his contention that the grounds cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into by this court while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review. In support of said argument, Mr. Sarma relies B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749. Mr. Sarma produced the record and accordingly he sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
3. The petitioner was working as Warehouse Manager Grade-I at the Satgaon Centre of the ASWC the respondent no. 2, represented by its Managing Director respondent no. 4
