Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 870
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Sri Diganta Haloi – Appellant
Versus
Numaligarh Refinery Limited – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7682 OF 2016 WITH WP(C) NO. 6151 OF 2016
Decided on : 15-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate, Mr. R. Sarma and Mr. A. Sandilya, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate and Ms. A. Verma, Advocate.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the Evidence Act's requirements for electronic records; failure to do so invalidates findings of misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff of Numaligarh Refinery Limited - The writ petitions challenge the removal and subsequent compulsory retirement of the petitioners following disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct related to the auction of scrap materials. The petitioners argued that the charges were not conclusively proven and that the disciplinary process violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 1-38)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65A and 65B - The court emphasized that electronic records must be proven according to the provisions of the Evidence Act, and failure to do so renders the evidence inadmissible. (Paras 30-32)
(C) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that it does not act as an appellate body in disciplinary matters but ensures compliance with natural justice and statutory rules. (Paras 35-36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were removed from service following an inquiry into their alleged misconduct during the auction of scrap materials after a fire incident at Numaligarh Refinery. The inquiry found some charges partially proved and others fully proved, leading to their removal, which was later modified to compulsory retirement. (Paras 1-7)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the inquiry proceedings were flawed, particularly regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, and that the findings were not supported by sufficient evidence. The disciplinary authority's decisions were quashed, and the petitioners were reinstated with back wages. (Paras 37-38)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, the admissibility of electronic evidence, and whether the penalties imposed were justified. (Paras 8-10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with the Evidence Act regarding electronic records, and that the findings of misconduct were not substantiated by adequate evidence. (Paras 30-34)
Result: The writ petitions were allowed, and the petitioners were reinstated with 50% back wages. (Para 38)
JUDGMENT :
These two writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority on the basis of enquires conducted against the writ petitioners, whereby the writ petitioners were removed from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Subsequently, on appeal the Appellate Authority modified the order of removal to that of compulsory retirement.
2. The writ petitioner in WP(C)/7682/2016 (namely, Sri Diganta Haloi) was appointed as a Graduate Engineer Training in Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) in June, 2005. At the time when the enquiry was instituted, he was working as Assistant Manager. The writ petitioner in WP(C)/6151/2016 (namely, Sri Pankaj Boro) was employed as Senior Manager (Materials) in Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) at the relevant point in time.
3. In the month of May, 2013, there was a fire incident in Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) leading to damage of some articles. These articles comprising mostly of burnt cables and other scrap materials were approved for disposal by the higher authorities of Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL). These items were decided to be auctioned off in two lots. Lot No.1 comprised of ferrous and nonferrous scrap items and Lot No. 2 comprised of burnt cables. Thereafter, an e tender was called for and the disposal of the scrap materials were awarded to one M/S Steelex (India ltd). On 15.03.2014 these scrap materials were loaded in three different trucks by the said M/S Steelex (India Ltd) within the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) complex premises. On the same day, an FIR was lodged by a few local Journalist of Golaghat and nearby areas alleging that in the name of scrap, useful materials were taken out. On the basis of that FIR lodged, the police seized the trucks on the same day. The concerned Officer-In-Charge of the local police out-post addressed a letter to the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) In-Charge to depute an officer for verifying the items/materials. On that basis a General Manager (Commercial) of Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) was deputed to the police station.
4. The General Manager (Commercial) upon verification of these items/materials submitted a report on 20.03.2014 to the higher authorities of Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL). In the said report it was stated that these three trucks were brought inside the Refinery premises and the goods, which were loaded on the trucks were unloaded with the help of cranes and labourers for due examination and verification. These trucks were examined by the General Manager (Commercial) in the presence of Police, a Magistrate, two employees of the ASEB (now APDCL) and 8 (eight) persons representing the complainants. The materials in 2 (two) trucks were certified to be scrap materials by the technical persons of the refinery however. In respect of a third truck 2 (two) coils of cables of quite large dimension were seen and the complainants insisted that they were new cables. These 2 (two) coils of cables were inspected on the truck by the Police, the Magistrate and the technical persons of the Numaligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) along with the complainants. The Magistrate ordered for sealing of these cables for further testing. The drivers of the trucks were asked by the Magistrate and the Police to show the locations within the refinery from where the materials were loaded and accordingly, it was pointed out by the driver of the third vehicle that the location was within the premises of a Ware house from where, these 2 (two) rolls of cables were loaded. It was also pointed out that these materials were loaded by a crane in the presence of NRL representative and CISF personnel. Accordingly, the said report was submitted by the Chief Manager (Commercial) to the higher Authorities that prima facie there appears to be involvement of officers of NRL Ware House, which needs to be investigated in detail.
5. On the basis of the report submitted by the
