Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
JOGEN DAS S/O LATE KHATARAM DAS – Petitioner
Versus
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. – Respondent
WP (C) No. 893 of 2011
Decided On : 19-06-2024
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982; Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the principles of natural justice, the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings, and the necessity for clear and specific charges against an employee. It emphasized that the absence of compelling evidence and the failure to allow the petitioner to inspect crucial documents undermined the validity of the charges. The court concluded that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and arbitrary, leading to the quashing of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a junior engineer, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged habitual negligence, misappropriation of funds, and breach of conduct regulations. He contested the charges, claiming he had applied for leave and provided explanations for his absences. The enquiry officer found some charges proved while others were not, leading to a penalty of reduced pay and recovery of funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry officer's conclusions were not supported by sufficient evidence, particularly regarding the misappropriation charge. It noted that the petitioner was not allowed to inspect key documents, which violated principles of natural justice. The court determined that the findings were arbitrary and perverse, lacking a reasonable basis.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings adhered to principles of natural justice, whether the charges were substantiated by adequate evidence, and whether the penalty imposed was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted fairly, with clear charges and the opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the employer, and mere conjecture cannot sustain a finding of guilt. The absence of compelling evidence and procedural irregularities warranted the quashing of the penalty.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of penalty and directed the return of the recovered amount to the petitioner, while rejecting the claim for salary during the unauthorized absence period.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. BK Das learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury,
2. The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ the nature of certiorari for learned standing counsel, APDCL. setting aside and quashing findings of the departmental enquiry report and order of punishment dated 18.06.2010, whereby penalty of reduction in pay by one stage with cumulative effect and recovery of an amount of Rs. 37,194/-in 9 (nine) instalments were directed. A further prayer is made for payment of salary for the petitioner with effect from and from 01.02.2008 to 13.02.2008 and from 25.02.2008 to 29.02.2008, during which period according to the petitioner, he was on leave.
3. The brief fact of the case can be summarised as follows:
II. Three charges were levelled against the petitioner. The first charge was habitual negligence of duty/ unauthorised absence from duty for three periods i.e. from 15.02.2008 to 24.02.2008, from 05.03.2008 to 31.03.2008 and from 03.03.2008 to 11.05.2008.
III. The second charge was misappropriation of Board’s revenue to the tune of Rs. 91,158.55/-.
IV. The third charge was breach of ASEB Officers Conduct Regulation, 1982 more particularly Regulation 10.
V. The petitioner denied the charge No. 1 and contended that the petitioner had submitted application for leave on 14.02.2008 and earned leave application on 26.02.2008. An explanation was given that he was suffering from chronic sinusitis and also undergone an operation during the said period.
VI. As regards the second charge of theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection with business of the Board, he denied the same. Regarding the charge of misappropriation of Board’s revenue, the petitioner had given certain explanation like no availability of consumer ledger etc.
VII. After completion of the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer concluded that as the petitioner himself has admitted as regard his absence and from his stand it is clear that the petitioner remained absent without even bothering to obtain permission to leave head quarter or without awaiting the sanction of the leave. Accordingly, it was held that the charge No. 1 was proved.
VIII. As regards the charge No. 2(a), the enquiry officer concluded that the charge was not proved. Regarding the misappropriation of Rs. 91,138.55/-under charge No. 2(b), the enquiry officer concluded that the explanation furnished by the charged officer is not supported by any documentary evidence and are somewhat vague. It was also concluded that the charge officer has failed to show as to how an amount of Rs. 28,000/-shown to have been realised in the ledger is correct. Accordingly, it was held that said charge was proved except entry Nos. 5 and 7.
IX. A second show cause notice was issued on 22.08.2009 and the petitioner had filed reply to such show cause notice on 14.10.2009. A specific stand was taken that the consumer ledger on the basis of which the allegation was made, was not produced before the enquiry officer and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his right to cross-examine on such ledger. The petitioner also disputed the determination of the enquiry officer that there was a shortage of amount of Rs. 78,138.55/-.
X. On receipt of such explanation, the respondents re-calculated the amount and found out that another amount of Rs. 40,945/-cannot be recovered from the petitioner out of Rs. 78,158.55/-(amount found recoverable by the enquiry officer). Therefore, amount of misappropriation of revenue was reduced to Rs. 37,194/-.
XI. Thereafter, by an order dated 18.06.2010 the employer passed the order of penalty and held that the petitioner is liable for recovery of amount of Rs. 37,194/-. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal. Said appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by t
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.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and require cogent evidence; failure of the authority to produce documents and examine witnesses invalidates the outcome.
The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.
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
