D.O.R. Chopra vs Union of India (UOI)

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The present writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia:

(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing C rating of 1988-89 and substituting A/A rating in its place and issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 company to promote the Petitioner to Scale E-4 falling within cluster ''B'' w.e.f. 30.6.1989 as envisaged by Rule 4, 1 of the Rules of Promotion for executive of the above his juniors, namely, Respondents Nos. 8 to 10 in the seniority list of E-4 officers while showing his date of promotion as 30.6.89 and pay arrears of pay and allowances admissible on the E-4 Scale from 30-6-89;

(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 company to give a suitable post of E-4 level befitting his seniority and potentials in Delhi for at least one year in the circumstances prayed for by the Petitioner in his petition dated 12-8-89 given on compassionate grounds to the authorities of Respondent No. 2 company;

(c) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the disciplinary proceedings de novo started vide impugned memo. No. CMO/ VIG/PE-109/991 dated 30.3.1990 issued by Respondent No. 4;

(d) that ad interim order or direction for stay of the DPC meeting to be held soon for promotion of executives at E-3 level to E-4 level, or in the alternative issue an ad interim order or direction that the post in the E-4 level be earmarked and kept unfilled and reserved for the Petitioner w.e.f. 30-6-89 till final decision in the matter of promotions pronounced by this Hon''ble Court;

(e) to issue order of ad interim order to stay of the disciplinary proceeding started vide Memo No. CMO/ VIG/PE-109/991 dated 30.3.1990 till the final disposal of this writ petition;

(f) ad interim order for stay of Memo CMO/VIG/PE-92 dated 30.3.90;

(g) rule nisi to issue in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) above;

(h) cost of this application be paid by the Respondents;

(i) pass such other further orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper including cost of this writ petition.

It is stated that the Petitioner happens to be the Deputy Chief (M)/Central Marketing Organization of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and he challenges three orders being order Nos. PL/PR/31, 32 and 33/89 dated July 24, 1989, issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. through its Chairman by which the three persons alleged to be junior to the Petitioner have been promoted to the next higher grade arbitrarily, illegally and on collateral considerations affecting the right of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also challenged the office order No. PL/TR/29/89 dated July 24, 1989, issued by the Respondent No. 2 that the transfer of the Petitioner from the post of BM, BSO Allahabad to the present post is arbitrarily, illegally and mala fide and the order dated March 30, 1990, issued by the Respondent No. 4 Addl. Director (Marketing) under ref. No. CMO/VJG/PE-109/991 by superseding earlier order dated September 16; 1989, by the Respondent No. 5 General Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Central Marketing Organization is also illegal, baseless, unwarranted and uncalled for. According to the Petitioner, he is an executive of E-3 Grade of the Central Marketing Organization and was, till August 9, 1989, a Branch Manager of Branch Sales Office, Allahabad. The Petitioner, in fact, joined Steel Authority of India Ltd. on November 14, 1977, as a Sales Executive (Trainee) in E-1 Scale after competing and succeeding in the All India Competition for Management Trainees held by Respondent No. 2 in 1977. The Petitioner claims to have excellent academic distinction and brilliant performance in discharging his duties. The Petitioner was promoted and posted as Branch Manager at Allahabad. The Petitioner has challenged the proceedings as it has been contrary to and inconsistent with service jurisprudence. The allegation is that the Petitioner has been illegally denied the benefit of proper promotion and he has been arbitrarily superseded. The Petitioner has thus sought for the relief�s as indicated above.

The supplementary affidavit has since been filed challenging the transfer, Annual Confidential Reports, denial of promotion and departmental proceedings by annexing several documents in support of the main writ petition.

The writ petition is contested by the Respondents Nos. 2-7 by filing a comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition. All the allegations have been controverted.

There is an affidavit in reply filed by the writ Petitioner reiterating the points taken already in the main writ petition. At the time of hearing a lengthy argument has been made by Dr. Monotosh Mukherjee (for the Petitioner) and Mr. Ginwala (for the Respondent) as to the production of documents during the disciplinary proceedings. This scope of discovery and/or interrogatory as envisaged under the CPC has elaborately been referred. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the case laws. Upon perusal of the materials on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that during the disciplinary proceedings the Petitioner is entitled to inspect all material documents'' which are relevant for the purpose of effecting adjudication of the disciplinary proceedings. The Respondents cannot deny the right of inspection by the Petitioner and for the production of the same for necessary consideration. The scope of discovery and/or interrogatory in a suit is not sine qua non for effecting disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings must be completed by giving fair chance of defense and by complying with the principle of natural justice. If the Petitioner can convince the Enquiry Officer that certain documents are relevant and necessary in the disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents cannot avoid inspection and production of such records. Taking this broad view, this Court makes it clear that the Respondents have the obligation to place on record, all the relevant documents upon proper notice by the Petitioner and the enquiry officer will consider the probative value of the same at the time of disposal of the matter on merit. There is no bar and/or impediment either for the inspection of documents or for production of records. The disciplinary proceedings will continue during the pendency of the writ petition and the same should be completed without prejudice and within a period of three months from date and a final order may be passed and/or communicated to the Petitioner but no effect should be given without the leave of the Court. The final hearing of the writ petition is adjourned for 4 (four) months.

Application disposed of.