Shri Manoj Kumar vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 755 Del

ORDER

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service of the Corporation as also the order dated 5.3.2001 passed by the Appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

2. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.1.2000 for misconduct under clauses 2.6, 2.9, 2.26, 2.43 and 2.47 of the Certified Standing Orders of the respondents. In the said charge sheet various charges were listed and the petitioner was called upon to give his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause and as the explanation given by the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory an enquiry officer was appointed by the respondent Corporation to make an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. On completion of the enquiry proceedings the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.11.2000 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A copy of the aforesaid enquiry report was sent to the petitioner to submit his representation, if any, against the same. After seeking for extension of the date for submission of his reply the petitioner submitted his reply which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority. On perusal of the same and the records of the case, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 31.1.2001 dismissing the petitioner from service of the Corporation with immediate effect. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority which was rejected by order dated 5.3.2001. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for quashing of both the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority as also by the appellate authority and seeking for a further direction tot he respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were vague and incorrect. It was contended that the PCO from which the petitioner allegedly made the telephone call is not located within the premises of the company and therefore a charge drawn in that regard by the Disciplinary Authority is without any application of mind. It was also submitted that the display billing record of the PCO, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P-3 shows that no call was made on 4.1.2000 at or around 18.50 hours and therefore, the entire departmental case was false and fabricated. It was also submitted that there was violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry proceedings by the Enquiry Officer as no document was furnished to the petitioner and no list of witnesses was annexed with the charge sheet.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand, placing reliance on the records of the disciplinary proceedings submitted that the contentions raised are baseless. It was also submitted that the document son records namely the display billing record of the PCO clearly prove and establish the charge against the petitioner, for it indicates that a call was made from the PCO on 4.1.2000 at 19.07 hours and therefore, the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved to the hilt. It was also submitted that the petitioner admitted before the Management's witness namely - MW3 that he made the call under the influence of liquor and therefore, the Enquiry Officer as also the Disciplinary Authority were justified in holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. He further submitted that the names of the witnesses were disclosed to the petitioner and he participated in the enquiry without any objection and cross-examined the witnesses. So far the documents are concerned all the documents were supplied to him and therefore, there cannot be any grievance of the petitioner in that regard.

5. In order to appreciate the contention of the counsel appearing for the parties I have considered the records placed before me as also the records of the departmental proceedings. One of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet was that the made a telephone call at around 18.50 hours that a bomb had been fitted in Mathura-Jalandhar Pipeline near Sirhind Canal Crossing which might blast at any time thereby causing server damage to the Pipeline. The aforesaid call was traced with the help of Telecom Department and the petitioner was formally arrested by the police and was put in police lock up for the incident. Thereafter the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate and remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody.

6. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary authority scrutinised the evidence adduced before it and on consideration of the said evidence came to a finding that the aforesaid charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. The display billing record of the PCO and the evidence adduced by the witnesses indicate that in fact a telephone call was mae on 4.1.2000 at about 7.07 hours. MW3 also deposed in the enquiry proceeding that the petitioner admitted before him that in fact he made such a call under the influence of liquor. It is recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the evidence as a whole has to be seen. A criminal case is also instituted against the petitioner on the aforesaid allegation and the plaice arrested him in connection with the aforesaid charge of making phone call falsely regarding plantation of a bomb in the pipeline. The conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as also by the Disciplinary Authority in that regard are findings of fact and this court cannot sit as an appellate court like a criminal court to re-appreciate the evidence on record.

7. It is also to be kept in mind that the standard of proof required in a departmental proceeding is different from a criminal trial. In a crimina trial, the prosecution is to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence required in a departmental enquiry is not regulated by the strict rule of Evidence Act. The fact that the petitioner admitted beforeMW-3 that he had made the call under the influence of liquor which is stated by the said wetness during the enquiry proceedings also satisfies the requirement of standard of proof in the departmental proceeding and proves the charge levelled against the petitioner.

8. The allegation that the petitioner was not given copies of the documents is belied from the records of the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was given copies of the documents relied upon and produced in the enquiry proceedings which is clear from the enquiry report. The petitioner in the proceedings had also categorically stated that he had received all the documents and did not want any further documents, ad would appear from the proceeding dated 25.4.2000. It also transpires from the records that those witnesses who were produced by the management during the course of enquiry were allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner and he was also given the opportunity to produced his defense evidence, if any. Therefore, the contention that there is denial of principles of natural justice is without any merit. The disciplinary authority has passed a speaking order giving reasons for its decision for awarding punishment against the petitioner. The Appellate Authority also considered each of the points raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner who considered the same in the light of the records and by a detailed speaking order rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The grounds raised in the appeal were found to be without any merit and baseless in the light of the records of the case.

9. Therefore, no ground is made out by the petitioner calling for interference with the orders of the Disciplinary authority as also of the appellate Authority. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed.