AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:
It is in the above fact and circumstances, humbly prayed that, your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application and issue notice to the Opposite parties to show cause as to why writ application should not be allowed and if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient or false cause, your Lordships may be pleased to allow the writ application by quashing the orders dt.05.01.2010 (Annexure-6), order dtd.13.01.2010 (Annexure-10) of the disciplinary Authority and order dated 24.04.2010 (Annexure-14) of the Appellate Authority and further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to give all consequential benefits to the Petitioner as Management Trainee;
And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case;
And for such act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.
It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Charge-sheet dtd.15.05.2009 under Annexure-1, Petitioner filed his reply and also participated in the inquiry. It is contended that after submission of the inquiry report under Annexure-5 and as provided under the note appended to Rule-23 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 (in short, “Rules”) so framed by the authorities of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (in short, “HAL”), Petitioner after submission of the inquiry report should have been given an opportunity to file his representation to the finding of the Inquiry Officer. As further provided under Note- (i) & (ii) appended to Rule-23, the Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the representation from the Petitioner and taking into account the finding of the Inquiry Officer, could have imposed the punishment either minor or major penalty on the Petitioner.
It is contended that in the proceeding so initiated under Annexure-1, after receipt of the inquiry report, Petitioner was never issued with a show-cause by enclosing the inquiry report and thereby enabling the Petitioner to make his representation. It is accordingly contended that since the provisions contained under Rule-23 of the Rules was not followed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. party No.2, the order of punishment so imposed on the Petitioner vide the impugned order dtd.05.01.2010 under Anexure-6, modified vide another order passed on 13.01.2010 under Annexure-10 stands vitiated.
Note-(i) & (ii) of Rule-23 of the Rules reads as follows:
Note: (i) If a Departmental Enquiry was constituted by the Disciplinary Authority as per Rues, a copy of the Enquiry Report be given invariably to the Delinquent by the Disciplinary Authority whenever any penalty is proposed to be imposed, whether ‘minor’ or ‘major’, and representation, if any, from the Delinquent may be called for thereafter. Thereafter, the Enquiry Report may be considered by the Disciplinary Authority taking into account the representation, if any, of the Delinquent and appropriate penalty imposed having regard to the gravity of the charges etc. and his past records etc. A proforma of the letter to be issued while forwarding copy of the Enquiry Report is at Appendix-VI”.
(ii)A copy of the enquiry report should be furnished to the delinquent employee in the proforma referred to above, whenever the Enquiry Officer is not the Disciplinary Authority. Representation, if any, from the delinquent employee may be called for. Thereafter, the Competent Authority may decide about the punishment to be awarded by taking into account the representation, if any of the delinquent employee having regard to the gravity of the charges, his past records etc.
It is also contended that challenging such order of punishment, Petitioner though moved the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 by filing an appeal under Annexure-12, but the Appellate Authority even though came to a conclusion that Rule-23 has not been followed, but rejected the Appeal vide order dtd.24.04.2010 under Annexure-14 and with a plea that since the Petitioner has been held guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority along with the inquiry report supplied the order of punishment passed on 05.01.2010, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such action of the Disciplinary Authority. While taking such a view, the appellate authority rejected the appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the order of punishment so passed under Annexure-6/modified vide order under Annexure-10 and the order passed by the Appellate authority under Annexure-14, vehemently contended that since the Rules governing the field was not followed, more particularly, the Note appended to Rule-23 of the Rules, not only the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority is vitiated, but also the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-14.
Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned orders needs interference of this Court.
Mr.A.R Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opp Parties on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since in the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide charge memo dtd.15.05.2009 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was found guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer in his report under Annexure-5, taking into account the seriousness of the charges, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment by Opp. Party No.2 vide his order dtd.05.01.2010 under Annexure-6. Vide the said order, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reduction to lower post of Project Man (D-6). Such order was modified with passing of a fresh order vide order dtd.13.01.2010 under Annexure-10 with the punishment of “Demotion to the post of Project Man (D-7)”.
It is contended that challenging such order of punishment, Petitioner preferred an appeal under Annexure-12 and the Appellate Authority by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, rejected the same vide order dtd.24.04.2010 under Annexure-14. It is contended that since the order of punishment passed by Opp. party No.2, has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 vide his order under Annexure-14, no interference is called for.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide charge-sheet dtd.15.05.2009 under Annexure-1. In the said proceeding, Petitioner after filing his reply under Annexure-2, participated in the inquiry. As found, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report under Annexure-5 and found the Petitioner guilty of the charges.
However, as found, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 without following the provisions contained under the Note appended to Rule-23, while forwarding the inquiry report to the Petitioner also forwarded the order of punishment passed by him on 05.01.2010 under Annexure-6 imposing the punishment of demotion to the rank of Project Man (D-6). Such order of punishment was modified vide order dtd.13.01.2010 under Anexure-10 with modification of the order of demotion from D-6 to D-7.
This Court after going through Rule-23 and the notes appended thereto is of the view that after receipt of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp.party No.2 should have communicated the same to the Petitioner and thereby enabling the Petitioner to file his representation against the finding of the Inquiry Officer.
Since it is found that no such procedure was followed by Opp. party No.2 and no document has been enclosed to the counter affidavit, showing compliance of the aforesaid requirement, this Court is of the view that since the Rules governing the field has not been followed, the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-6/modified order under Annexure-10 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his order under Annexure-14 are not sustainable in the eye of law.
Therefore, this Court while quashing the orders issued under Annexure-6,10 & 14 , remits the matter to Opp. party No.2, to start the proceeding afresh from the stage of supply of the inquiry report and decide the proceeding in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion.
However, since the Proceeding is of the year 2009, this Court expects that the Disciplinary Authority shall dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.