M. Muthiah vs Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. and General Manager (C) and Disciplinary Authority, P and A Department

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 9.6.2010 in W.P. No. 11737 passed by the learned single

Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed for quashing the suspension order, dated 7.1.2009 and charge memo, dated 7.3.2009 issued to the

Appellant.

The Appellant is the General Secretary of Balmer Lawrie Group Assistants'' Association. While he was working as Deputy Manager (P&A), by

proceedings, dated 7.1.2009 the second Respondent placed him under suspension alleging that he committed certain acts of omissions and

misconducts as specified in Clause 26 of the Conduct, Discipline and Review Rules applicable to officers of the Company. Thereafter, by

proceedings, dated 7.3.2009, the Appellant was issued charge memo alleging that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company,

absented from duty without prior permission or sufficient cause and prevented officers from performing their duty on the ''one day strike'' i.e. on

7.1.2009 declared by the Oil Sector PSU Officers'' Association, of which, Balmer Lawrie Group Assistants'' Association is a constituent and that

he stood outside the office building at 628, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai and incited the officers reporting for duty in the general shift that in

view of the call for strike by the said Association, they should not go to the office and work. He also created hurdle in the main entrance to the

office building, which prevented the tenants in the building and clients and customers of the company from entering the building. According to the

first Respondent, already by its circular, dated 5.1.2009 they have informed the officers that since action had already been initiated to implement

the pay revision of the officers, there was no rationale to proceed with the strike.

The Appellant gave his explanation on 18.3.2009 denying all the charges and requested the second Respondent to drop the charges framed

against him. On receipt of the said explanation, the second Respondent, by proceedings, dated 30.4.2009 ordered departmental enquiry and

appointed Shri K. Jayaraman, District Judge (Retd.) as Enquiry Officer and nominated Smt. Syama Gopakumar, Manager (HR-SR), Balmer

Lawrie, Chennai as Presiding Officer. Aggrieved by the above proceedings, the Appellant has come forward with the writ petition.

The learned Judge having considered the entire facts and circumstances as well as the rival contentions, held that the charge memo is devoid of

merit and defective. In para 9, the learned Judge has held as under:

On a careful analysis of the charge memo, as contended by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, I find that the allegations made in the

charge memo appear to be evasive, bald and vague. It is the basic principle that there should be some materials to frame a charge. But, in the

instant case, except the bald averment that the Petitioner had prevented the other officers from discharging their duty, no other material was

available to explain certain questions arising in this case, such as, who were all the officers prevented by the Petitioner? Was there any complaint

by such officer(s)?, who were the tenants prevented?, was there any complaint from the said tenants or clients, who visited the office on that date,

etc. to substantiate the charges. Therefore, I find some force in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner that the charge

memo is bereft of material particulars.

While holding so, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition permitting the Appellant to raise same contentions before the Enquiry Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the Appellant has come forward with the present writ appeal.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant, while reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Judge, submitted that when

the learned Judge having held that the charge memo appears to be evasive, bald and vague, ought to have allowed the writ petition by setting aside

the charge memo and consequential enquiry proceedings.

We have gone through the entire facts and circumstances and the materials placed before us, including the charge memo. The specific charge

against the Appellant are that on 7.1.2009 which was declared as ''one day strike'' by Oil Sector PSU Officers'' Association, the Appellant

prevented the other officers from performing their duty and incited the officers reporting for duty in the general shift and that he did not attend

work, nor he marked his attendance. When the Appellant sought for information under Right to Information Act, regarding the details of

attendance of Officers of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. on 7.1.2009, the first Respondent company furnished the attendance details stating that on

7.1.2009 out of 449 Officers, 379 were present, 34 were on tour/outstation duty and 34 were on authorised leave while none were on

unauthorised absence. This would clearly show that on 7.1.2009 the Appellant was not absent. Hence, there was no question of his unauthorised

absence. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Judge the allegations made in the charge memo appear to be evasive, bald and vague. We are

also in agreement with the said conclusion of the learned Judge.

Rule 31-B(1) of the Conduct, Discipline and Review Rules for Officers, reads as under:

On the basis of the material available with the disciplinary authority, if he comes to a provisional conclusion that a penalty as provided for under

Rule 27 (d)&(e) is to be imposed on an officer he shall frame a charge sheet which would also indicate the allegations on which the charges are

based along with such other material that he considers relevant to the various charges.

Therefore, the above said Rule enables the disciplinary authority to frame a charge on the basis of the material available with it. But as observed

by the learned Judge, there were no sufficient materials available to the Suk disciplinary authority to frame charges against the Appellant. Though

the learned Judge has categorically held that the charge memo was vague and evasive, he was not inclined either to set aside the charge memo or

suspension order. Therefore, in view of the fact that the charge memo was devoid of details, vague and defective, we are inclined to set aside the

suspension order.

In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The suspension order, dated 7.1.2009 is set aside and the Respondents are directed to reinstate the

Appellant into service forthwith.

It is open to the Respondents to issue a fresh charge sheet with full particulars and proceed with the enquiry if sufficient materials are available

to frame a charge and complete the same within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected

MPs 1 and 2 are closed.