Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.N. Biswal, B.P. Das, JJ.
BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA - APPELLANT
Versus
ORISSA DRUGS AND CHEMICALS LTD. AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 6665 of 2003
Decided On : 19-05-2009
K. Patnaik, Ranjit Samal and Sanjay Pattnayak, for the Appellant; B.N. Rath, J.N. Rath, P.R. Sahoo, P.K. Behera, S.K. Deury, M.K. Panda, M.K. Singhdeo and P.S. Samantara, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the O.D.C.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, particularly regarding the admissibility of previous statements by witnesses and the authority's power to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceeding - Managerial Misconduct - O.D.C.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, Rule 25(11) - The court discussed the violation of guidelines, dereliction of duties, and misuse of official powers by the petitioner. It interpreted Rule 25(11) and cited the Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur Labour Law Journal (I) 1972 case to support the admissibility of previous statements made by witnesses. The court also analyzed the authority's power to initiate disciplinary proceedings and terminate the petitioner's service under Rule 20 and Rule 24 of the O.D.C.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Manager, Marketing, was accused of managerial misconduct and faced disciplinary proceedings initiated by the company. The petitioner challenged the charges, inquiry process, and termination of service, alleging bias and lack of authority in the disciplinary actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority followed the prescribed rules and procedures in initiating the proceedings, conducting the inquiry, and imposing the penalty. It upheld the authority's power to delegate disciplinary powers and terminate the petitioner's service. The court also directed the company to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, the authority's power to initiate and conduct the inquiry, and the legality of the termination of the petitioner's service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the O.D.C.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, specifically Rule 25(11), Rule 20, and Rule 24. It emphasized the admissibility of previous statements by witnesses and the authority's power to delegate disciplinary powers and impose penalties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and Annexure Nos. 1 and 10 were quashed. The company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 to the petitioner as compensation within three months.
JUDGMENT :
R.N. Biswal, J. - The Petitioner has filed this writ petition with prayer to quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under Annexure-1 and the order of punishment imposed under Annexure-10.
2. The case of the Petitioner in short is that while he was working as Manager, Marketing under opposite party No. 1 company on 2.7.2003 opposite party No. 4 due to personal vendetta issued the following charges against him:
(i) Violation of the guidelines and administrative orders of the competent authority in the matter of purchase and supply of medicine.
(ii) Failing to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the company in discharge of your duties and acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company.
(iii) Gross dereliction of duties in maintaining discipline, integrity, honesty, devotion, diligence and efficiency in discharging duties properly.
(iv) Dishonestly used your official power by exercising jurisdiction not vested with you and failing to exercise jurisdiction so vested and acting in the exercise of your jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularities.
(v) Mis-utilization of official powers and extending undue favour to the above manufacturer and distributor in the matter of purchase and sale of medicine of materials committing breach of trust.
(vi) Entered into criminal conspiracy with the manufacturer and distributor committing fraud on the company.
(vii) Causing financial loss to the company.
(viii) Gross negligence in duty.
A statement of allegations, on which the charges were based was also sent to the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner was issued with show cause notice and accordingly, he submitted his written statement of defence. The case of the Petitioner is that the alleged incident took place in the year, 2000-2001, when Mr. P.K. Mukharjee was the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 company. After Mr. P.K. Mukharjee, Mr. N.K.P. Sinha joined as Managing Director, both of whom were well acquainted with the management of the company did not find any fault with the Petitioner, but opposite party No. 4 taking advantage of his position being in-charge of the company, framed the aforesaid charges against the Petitioner without any authority. Not a single document was referred in the charge, which shows that the charges were framed basing on no document. However, Petitioner vide letter dated 8.7.2003 requested the management to supply him the documents on the basis of which charges were framed against him. On 18.7.2003, opposite party No. 4 issued a memorandum under Annexure-3 posing himself as the Managing Director of the company, and on the very date, he appointed Dr. J.S. Agarwal Senior Manager (tech.) I.D.P.L, Corporate office Gurgaon as Inquiry Officer. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer issued notice to the Petitioner to attend the enquiry on 20.10.2003. On that date, the Inquiry Officer directed the Presenting Officer to give chances to the Petitioner to inspect the relevant documents. He also directed him to give the Petitioner copies of earlier statements given by the witnesses. The documents supplied by the Presenting Officer as per the direction of the Inquiry Officer disclosed that those were statement of witnesses recorded by C.B.I, in connection with PE.05/2002-CBI Bhubaneswar, which was initiated against the Petitioner and dropped subsequently.
4. The inquiry was conducted on 21.12.2003 and the Petitioner participated in it. But, instead of proceeding as per O.D.C.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), the Inquiry Officer produced the statement of witnesses, recorded by the C.B.I, and the Petitioner was asked to cross-examine those witnesses. But he choose not to cross-examine them, since they were not examined by the Presenting Officer in the Disciplinary Proceeding. So, the Inquiry Officer concluded the proceeding on that day and found the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the second show cause notic
