Deputy General Manager I and G Disciplinary Authority ITI Limited and Others vs Lakshmipriya

N. Kumar, J.—This Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge who has set aside the order of punishment and directed payment of monetary and consequential service benefits.

The respondent is party-in-person. We have heard the party-in-person as well as the counsel appearing for the appellants.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the Writ Petition.

The petitioner is working as Deputy Manager (I and C) in the respondent No. 1 establishment. A charge sheet was issued on 26.10.2011 alleging that the petitioner committed misconduct by submitting false, fake, forged, fabricated and fictitious lodging bills making a false claim of Rs. 43,193/-. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 17,281/- was claimed, towards bus fare of Rs. 1,400/-, Journey DA of Rs. 220/-, actual expenses of Rs. 3,741/-, lunch expenses of Rs. 1,520/- and lodging charges of Rs. 10,400/-. The petitioner submitted her reply and sought for dropping of the proceedings. Not being satisfied with the said reply, an enquiry was ordered. Enquiry officer was appointed. In the enquiry proceedings, management examined MW-1 to MW-4. MW1 is staff of H.R. Department, MW2 is a Chief Manager, S.A.S. Division, MW3 is staff of Vigilance Department and MW-4 is Chief Manager Vigilance. They also produced documents to substantiate their claim. The petitioner remained absent. These witnesses were not cross-examined. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of her contention. Therefore, the enquiry officer on appreciation of the aforesaid material found that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner stands proved and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority.

The disciplinary authority on consideration of the said report issued a second cause notice enclosing a copy of the report. The petitioner sent a report denying the findings recorded in the said report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass an order withholding one increment without cumulative effect and also directed for recovery of Rs. 72,381.79.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a statutory appeal which came to be dismissed. It is thereafter she preferred a Writ Petition before this Court seeking quashing of the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority and for other consequential reliefs. The learned single Judge who heard the matter was of the view that the management has not established their case. They have not examined any independent witnesses to prove their case. Though documents are produced, the persons who issued the documents are not examined. The petitioner was placed ex-parte. He finds both the petitioner as well as the respondents are at fault. But, the respondent being an institution has to be more diligent. Their mistakes cannot be condoned and, therefore, he set aside the order of punishment and directed the petitioner is entitled to all monetary benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the management has preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned order contended that, in the absence of cross-examination of the management witnesses and the documents produced by them and, in the absence of any evidence from the employee, the learned single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority on the ground independent witnesses have not been examined and the authors of the documents are not examined and, therefore, he submits the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

The respondent - party in person contends that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is violative of principles of natural justice. She was deputed to Chennai to perform the work of her higher-ups. She has been harassed because of her union activities. She has been kept under suspension. It is thereafter they have fabricated all these documents and initiated proceedings. As the entire enquiry is a farce she did not appear. Therefore, the learned single Judge rightly has set aside the order and granted the relief and, therefore, no case for interference with the said order is made out.

All that what the petitioner-party in person submits could have been taken note of by the learned single Judge if she had participated in the enquiry, cross-examined the management witnesses and also produced her evidence, both oral and documentary and then on appreciation of the same if what she contended before this Court and the learned single Judge is true, the order passed by the disciplinary authority could have been set aside. In the absence of any evidence on record when the evidence of the witnesses of the management is not challenged in cross-examination and if the documentary evidence produced in support of the case is not challenged in cross-examination, the learned single Judge was not justified in holding the documents are not proved, independent witnesses are not examined and the witnesses who have given evidence is of no assistance. The said finding is not based on any legal evidence. Even before us, the party-in-person reiterated those facts. In the absence of any evidence being adduced in the enquiry, mere argument would not help the party. Probably, it is because of want of legal assistance, she has been placed in this unfortunate situation. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that, in order to do justice between the parties, though normally the matters are not remanded to the enquiry officer, but as an exceptional case we would like to give her an opportunity to put forth her case, because from the material on record it is clear that she is a member of the Union, probably she is vociferous in protecting the interest of the employees, she is also holding a responsible post, she might have incurred the wrath of the management. If keeping this in the background if the management wants to silence her and have initiated the proceedings, it is always open to her to contest and bring on record the material which substantiates her case. It is thereafter on appreciation of the said material, appropriate orders could be passed and if the proceedings are initiated with any vengeance, with ulterior motives, appropriate orders could be passed. But, without any evidence on record, without the management witnesses being cross-examined, without the documents produced in support of their case not being disputed in the enquiry, merely on her submission no such inference could be drawn. That is the error committed by the learned single Judge. Hence, we pass the following order:--

"(i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is hereby set aside.

(iii) The order passed by the enquiry officer as well as the Appellate Authority are hereby set aside.

(iv) The management is directed to see that the enquiry proceedings are restored to its original file and an opportunity is given to the petitioner to participate in the said enquiry and the enquiry is completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order and appropriate orders are passed."