Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
J.N. Sharma, J.
MONISIKHA BARUA - Appellant
Vs.
HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPN. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondent
C.R. No. 1211 of 1990
Decided on : 09-05-1997
DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - PROCEDURE - ADMISSION - EVIDENCE - NATURAL JUSTICE - PREJUDICE - QUASHING OF ENQUIRY AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - SERVICE BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited, was placed under suspension on allegations of misconduct. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, and he was found guilty and dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and prejudice caused to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the Enquiry Officer failed to follow the prescribed procedure, did not record any evidence, and relied on the so-called admissions of the petitioner which were not voluntary and not recorded in writing. The court also found that the Enquiry Officer acted in a biased manner and played the role of a prosecutor instead of an impartial adjudicator.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the order of dismissal was valid and justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer failed to follow the prescribed procedure, did not record any evidence, and relied on the so-called admissions of the petitioner which were not voluntary and not recorded in writing. The court also found that the Enquiry Officer acted in a biased manner and played the role of a prosecutor instead of an impartial adjudicator. 2. The court held that the petitioner was prejudiced by the procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, and the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by bias and prejudice. 3. The court held that the order of dismissal was not valid and justified. The order was based on the flawed enquiry proceedings and was therefore liable to be quashed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of dismissal, and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner all the service benefits due to him till his death and thereafter all the retirement benefits as may be due to his wife.
JUDGMENT :
J.N. Sarma, J.—This Writ application originally was filed by one Suresh Chandra Barua with the prayer that the impugned order dated December 23, 1989, order dated November 26, 1989 and resolution communicated vide letter dated June 25/26, 1990 be quashed.
2. During the pendency of this Civil Rule the original Writ Petitioner died and his wife has been substituted in his place.
3. The brief facts are as follows:
On January 27, 1973 the original petitioner (hereinafter called the petitioner) was appointed as Accounts Assistant in the Hindustan Fertilizar Corporation of India Limited. In the year 1978 and 1980 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer. In the year 1987 the petitioner was promoted to Accounts Officer, Grade-1 and he was transferred from Guwahati to Bhopal. On June 13, 1988 the petitioner while working at Bhopal was placed under suspension on certain allegations. On August 8, 1988 the petitioner was served with the memorandum containing number of allegations, but no document in support thereof was furnished. On the basis of these allegations a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted show cause denying the allegations. The Inquiry was accordingly conducted and thereafter the petitioner was found guilty and he was dismissed from service. It is mis dismissal from service which is challenged in this writ application.
4. I have heard Shri A.K. Bhattachariee, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri A.R. Borthakur, learned Advocate for the Respondents. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed and record was also produced. Shri Bhattacharjee made the following submissions:
(i) Non-framing of charges and furnishing of charge sheet to the petitioner - No enquiry started - Non-framing of charges and non-furnishing of charges together with statement of allegations to the petitioner violates mandatory provisions of Rule 26 (i) of the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1981-prejudice caused to the petitioner - violative of principle of Natural Justice.
(ii) No enquiry in accordance with procedure prescribed-no evidence recorded and allegations not proved in accordance with law -Violation of mandatory provisions of Services Rules - Violation of principles of Natural Justice.
(iii) Oral evidence cannot be dispensed with.
(iy) Vague and indefinite allegations - prejudice caused to the petitioner-violation of principles of Natural Justice.
(v) Article 21 is applicable in Departmental Proceedings.
(vi) Statements, documents and report in respect of Preliminary Enquiry not furnished to the petitioner but relied on by the Respondents - Violation of principles of Natural Justice - Prejudice caused to the petitioner in defending his case.
(vii) List of documents and list of Witnesses not furnished - copies of documents and other papers relied on by the Disciplinary Authority not furnished - not allowed to be inspected - before submitting show cause reply as well as during enquiry- prejudice caused to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice."
5. With the memorandum of charge, the statements of imputations misconduct in support of, the articles of charges framed against the petitioner were furnished and these imputations are 25 in number. In the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated, interalia, as follows:
"(i) The charges together with the statement of allegations on which they were based were communicated in writing to the petitioner and all the documents upon which the Management relied at the time of inquiry were produced before the petitioner and he inspected the same and no grievance was made on this count by the petitioner in the written statement filed by him.
(ii) The Enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and the impugned order was passed by applying mind.
(iii) That there was no violation of principle of natural justice and as a matter of fact a case was instit
AI
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
