Back
1995 (0) MPLJ 430
Gulab C. Gupta, M. Tamaskar
D.K. Saxena
vs
Coal India Limited And Anr.
Decided On : 8 February, 1994
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 AND 16 - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS - SUPPLY OF ENQUIRY REPORT - DISCRIMINATION IN PUNISHMENT - VALIDITY OF ORDER OF REMOVAL FROM SERVICE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Senior Personnel Officer in a Government company, was removed from employment following disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct. He challenged the order of removal, alleging violations of principles of natural justice and discrimination in punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that: 1. Issuance of charge-sheet by an authority other than the disciplinary authority did not violate principles of natural justice or Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Disclosure of documents used against the petitioner and allowing him to inspect and take notes of the documents throughout the enquiry satisfied the principles of natural justice, despite the refusal to provide photocopies. 3. Non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner before passing the impugned order did not violate principles of natural justice, as the report was eventually supplied along with the order and the petitioner had the opportunity to represent against it in his appeal. 4. The appellate order, though brief, demonstrated application of mind and fair consideration of the petitioner's submissions, and did not violate principles of natural justice. 5. Different punishments for different officers involved in the same matter were justified considering their varying roles and responsibilities, and did not amount to discrimination.
Issues: 1. Whether the issuance of a charge-sheet by an authority other than the disciplinary authority violated principles of natural justice or Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the non-supply of documents to the petitioner during the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner before passing the impugned order violated principles of natural justice. 4. Whether the appellate order was a non-speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. 5. Whether the different punishments given to different officers involved in the same matter amounted to discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the rules governing the petitioner's employment did not require the disciplinary authority to issue the charge-sheet, and there was no violation of principles of natural justice or Article 14 in the issuance of the charge-sheet by another authority. 2. The Court held that the disclosure of documents and allowing the petitioner to inspect and take notes of them throughout the enquiry satisfied the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had the opportunity to use the documents for cross-examination and defending himself. 3. The Court held that the non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner before passing the impugned order did not violate principles of natural justice, as the report was eventually supplied along with the order and the petitioner had the opportunity to represent against it in his appeal. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, which made the supply of the enquiry report a part of principles of natural justice, was not applicable retrospectively. 4. The Court held that the appellate order, though brief, demonstrated application of mind and fair consideration of the petitioner's submissions, and did not violate principles of natural justice. The Court noted that there was no legal requirement to deal with each and every submission of the petitioner and record a separate and independent finding on each. 5. The Court held that different punishments for different officers involved in the same matter were justified considering their varying roles and responsibilities, and did not amount to discrimination. The Court noted that misconduct is a matter of intention and that different persons may be differently punished based on the facts and circumstances of their involvement.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, finding no substance in the petitioner's allegations of violations of principles of natural justice or discrimination.
Gulab C. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner was a Senior Personnel Officer in the Respondent No. 2 and has been removed from employment on a finding of proved misconduct by order dated 15-11-1991 (Annexure P-12). He challenges constitutional and legal validity of the said order of removal by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondents are Government companies of the Central Government and since they are fully financed and controlled by the said Government, they fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also not in doubt that the officers like the petitioner are governed by Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. These rules are however not statutory and yet they govern service conditions of the petitioner and others as a part of their contract of employment. Since the respondents are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it is also not disputed that they are bound to ensure benefits of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the petitioner.
3. It appears that the petitioner, while working as Deputy Personnel Manager of Jamuna and Kotma Area of respondent No. 2, he is said to have committed several acts of misconduct and corruption. A charge-sheet dated 6-4-1989 (Annexure P-1) was therefore" served on him by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 detailing as many as 11 charges against the petitioner. These charges relate to irregularities in office procedure, fraudulently withdrawing the amount of the respondent-company, indiscriminate purchases without approval of the competent authority, embezzlement, misuse and misappropriation of money of the company etc. etc. The charge-sheet stated that this amounts to serious misconduct which may be visited by the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was therefore requested to send his-reply to the charges. The charge-sheet was also accompanied by statement of imputations giving necessary details of the charges. A list of documents in support of articles of charges detailing as many as 66 documents was also sent along with the charges. A list of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges mentioned (12 witnesses) was also given. A reading of the list of documents and list of witnesses indicates that the statements of witnesses were earlier recorded and included in the list of documents. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and denied the same. Thereafter, one Shri H. P. Gupta, General Manager (IED) was appointed as Enquiry Officer for holding the enquiry into the matter. From the proceedings of the enquiry which had been made available to us by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of this writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was permitted to inspect all the documents mentioned in the list attached to the charge-sheet. He was also granted facility of taking notes of the documents. It also appears that he asked for photo copies of those documents but the request was rejected. The enquiry seems to have started on 28-11-1989 and continued upto 5-4-1991. The witnesses against the petitioner were examined by the management and were cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter gave his written statement on 20-4-1991. Thereafter the evidence was examined by the enquiry officer who recorded his findings holding the petitioner guilty of charges Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 only. Charge No. 7 had so many heads but only (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (xi) were proved. Charges Nos. 6, 7(i), 7(iv), 7(v) were found not proved. The report of the enquiry officer was submitted to the respondent No. 1 and was examined at various levels. The file indicates that the report received consideration of the Chairman of the respondent No. 1 who eventually passed the impugned order of removal.
4
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
