P. Iadborne vs Meghalaya Transport Corporation

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is working as a Book Assistant is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 7th April, 2017 whereby certain deductions have been ordered to be made from his salary to the extent of misappropriation as alleged. The only case of the petitioner is that before inflicting such punishment of deduction from his salary no departmental proceeding was drawn up against him nor was he given a chance to defend himself in an adequate manner.

Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment as reflected in the Order No. 503, dated 7th April, 2017 without initiation of any departmental proceeding and that there has been a total go by to all said procedures as established by law in such matters. He submits that the action of the respondents also have seriously violated the principles of natural justice. He concludes his submissions by reiterating that in the absence of any proceeding as stated, there are no grounds to sustain the impugned order dated 7th April, 2017.

Mr. K. Khan, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, learned GA for the respondent submits that the matter is not as it seems or as portrayed by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the writ petitioner has been rendering unsatisfactory service from the time of his joining the Corporation in the year 1989 till date, and that on earlier occasions, departmental proceeding has been drawn against him whereby he has been found guilty as charged. With regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a total absence of any proceeding, the learned Sr. GA has drawn the attention of this Court to the Annexure-IV which is the Enquiry Report on the alleged misappropriation of cash from the Railway Earning of the Corporation. The learned Sr. GA submits that though this enquiry was directed against one Shri Dalumlang Tiewsoh, Cashier, SG Route Depot, Shillong, in the course of the detailed enquiry, the petitioner and other persons found involved therein were called for hearing and they had also proved their signatures on the transactions for sale of tickets by the Corporation. He submits that by their admission in the connected departmental proceedings though not directed against them specifically, they had admitted their complicity with regard to the alleged misappropriation. He therefore submits that the enquiry was conducted as per due process and the principles of natural justice have not been violated, as the petitioner and the other persons were heard before the said impugned order was passed. He further submits that there being no illegality in the process as adopted, and in view of the admission of the petitioner and others, the writ petition deserves no consideration and the same should be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions and examined the materials on record. The only point in contention in the present writ petition, is whether before inflicting the punishment on the petitioner, the proceedings as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent have been conducted as per due process, in accordance with law and the petitioner had been heard.

A bare perusal of the enquiry report would reflect that the departmental proceedings so initiated named only one Shri Dalumlang Tiewsoh, the then Cashier, SG Route Depot, Shillong and three charges had been framed in the said proceedings. As can be discerned from the enquiry report, the writ petitioner was also called for hearing and had also admitted his own signature. The relevant extract of the enquiry proceedings is quoted herein bellow for easy reference :-

"Over and above Shri. Dalumlang Tiewsoh, his Assistant Shri. C Sohtun has been called for hearing. He admitted that he used to receive the amount of collections and signed the Challans. He also identifies the signatures of other Booking Assistants. But, he denied to have been involved in the case.

Furthermore, the Booking Assistants of PRS Counters have also been called for hearing; Shri. P. Iadborne, Shri. W. Suting, Shri. R. Lamare, Shri. L. Jarin and Shri. C. Nongkhlaw. All of them admitted their own signatures and also identified the signature of others. With regard to the Challans where neither Cashier Shri Dalumlang Tiewsoh nor his Assistant Shri. C. Sohtun sign, they are unable to clarify but blaming the Cashier."

The departmental proceedings recorded the findings that on the facts and figures as placed the charges of misappropriation against the Cashier, Shri Dalumlang Tiewsoh were partly established. Established principles of service jurisprudence, supported by settled law provide that in a departmental proceeding or any proceeding against a delinquent employee, certain fundamental procedures have to be followed which necessarily entail framing of charges, statement of allegations and proceedings to be conducted in a manner wherein adequate opportunity is afforded to the delinquent employee to defend himself.

In the instant case, the indictment and subsequent award of punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner by relying on the collateral proceedings which has been initiated against the Cashier. Though involvement of the writ petitioner has been reflected by his own admission in the connected enquiry proceedings, the same however will not suffice to warrant inflicting of punishment as has been done by the impugned order, even if the said proceedings had indicated the connivance or involvement of the petitioner. The absence of specific proceedings against the petitioner and the failure of the respondents to afford him adequate opportunity to represent or defend against the proposed punishment make the actions of the respondents bad in the eye of law. The respondents before inflicting such punishment should have abided by the basic principles and procedures which have to be followed in such matters. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as stated above, the impugned order as far as it relates to the petitioner is unsustainable in law and the same needs to be interfered with by this Court.

For the foregoing reasons and circumstances of the case, the impugned order as far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside and quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law, for recovery of amounts alleged to have been defalcated by him.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and disposed of.