Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Dr. Deepak Kumar Gogoi, S/o Lt. Mahendra Nath Gogoi – Appellant
Versus
Oil India Limited And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 3605 of 2015
Decided on : 22-04-2024
Disciplinary Proceedings - Oil India Limited - Rule 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 5.5, 5.6, 5.9, 5.17, 5.18, 5.20 of Rules, 1982 - The court found serious procedural errors in the disciplinary proceedings, including the failure to frame specific charges and making conclusions based on facts not part of the statement of imputation, resulting in manifest injustice and violation of natural justice principles. The court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 16.09.2014 and 23.01.2015.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior doctor at Oil India Limited, was dismissed from service based on allegations of misconduct, including unauthorised absence, involvement in nefarious activities, and neglect of official duties. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious procedural errors in the disciplinary proceedings, including the failure to frame specific charges and making conclusions based on facts not part of the statement of imputation, resulting in manifest injustice and violation of natural justice principles. The court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 16.09.2014 and 23.01.2015.
Issues: Procedural errors in disciplinary proceedings, violation of natural justice principles, dismissal from service based on unproven allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from serious procedural errors, including the failure to frame specific charges and making conclusions based on facts not part of the statement of imputation, resulting in manifest injustice and violation of natural justice principles.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the impugned orders dated 16.09.2014 and 23.01.2015. The petitioner was provided relief in terms of treatment as a continuing employee till superannuation for the purpose of granting superannuation benefits, and the respondent employer was directed to consider the petitioner's claim for back wages.
1. Heard Mr. BD Kownar, learned Senior assisted by Mr. H Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M K Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Oil India Limited and Mr. AM Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Patowary, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7,8 and 9.
2. The instant writ petition is filed assailing an order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Disciplinary Authority) imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The further challenge is an order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the respondent No.6 (Appellate Authority) dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.09.2014. A prayer for a direction to the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service benefits has also been made in this writ petition.
3. It is recorded here that the petitioner has in the meantime attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of this writ petition. It is also recorded herein that the wife, the daughter and the son of the petitioner were also impleaded in this writ petition as respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 on their prayers as they claimed certain payment out of the financial benefits given to the petitioner.
4. The undisputed facts:
Before proceeding to the merit of the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties, let’s this Court first record the undisputed facts in the following paragraphs:
II. It was further alleged that such nefarious activities even may affect the diagnostic capability of the petitioner, which may lead to fatal situation. And accordingly, departmental action should be taken against the petitioner.
III. By an order dated 27.06.2013, the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from his date of arrest on 21.06.2013 in connection with Duliajan PS case No. 148/2013 under Section 498(A) IPC, registered on a complaint lodged by the wife of the petitioner.
IV. In the order of suspension, it was also provided that during the subsistence of suspension, the head quarter of the petitioner shall be Duliajan and he shall not leave the head quarter without obtaining prior permission of the residency executive, the person who issued the suspension order.
V. On 05.08.2013, the petitioner submitted an application to grant him privilege leave and station leave from 06.08.2013 for a period of 10 days to visit Guwahati for legal consultation with his lawyer.
VI. On the application filed by the petitioner, a note was put to the effect that as per CBC Guideline, the suspended executive may be granted permission to leave station for a certain period, however there is no provision for granting leave during suspension. Another note was put to the effect that no executive should leave station before 15.08.2013.
VII. However, after filling the application, the petitioner left the station.
VIII. Accordingly, on 17.08.2013, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner had left the station without obtaining prior written permission and he was asked to report back.
IX. The petitioner filed a reply on 30.08.2013 and made the following explanations:
a. He submitted the application before Head of Medical Services, who verbally replied that leave would be sanctioned and therefore, he proceeded to Guwahati.
b. While travelling, his vehicle met with a serious accident. Such accident delayed the consultation with his lawyer for filing a divorce petition.
c. Thus, his absence from Duliajan and delay in reporting back to the employer was for a bonafide reason and there was no intention on his part to disobey the reasonable order of his superior.
d. He submitted another leave application along with the s
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary proceedings to adhere to natural justice principles, including framing specific charges and making conclusions bas....
While courts generally do not interfere with findings of fact in disciplinary inquiries, a penalty of dismissal for unauthorised absence is reviewable if the disciplinary authority fails to exercise ....
Rule 56 of SFCI Employee (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, there is no provision for filing of Review Appeal by an employee.
The court established that a wilful absence from duty, especially in emergency situations, constitutes misconduct under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, and that disciplinar....
Unauthorized absence from duty and related misconduct proved; the disciplinary process upheld as fair and not in violation of natural justice.
The court emphasized that medical documents must establish the inability to discharge duties to justify absence from duty. It also highlighted the importance of conducting enquiry proceedings as per ....
The importance of following prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair enquiry and opportunity for the accused to present their case.
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
