Delhi High Court
S.Maithani vs Chairman-Cum-Managing ... on 3 November, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 03, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 10302/2015 & C.M. 25641-42/2015
S. MAITHANI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate
versus
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, CEMENT
CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. K. K. Rai, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr.
Anshul Rai, Advocates for
respondents No.1 and 2 with Mr.
Ajay Kumar Sharma, Company
Secretary, Cement Corporation of
India Ltd.-respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Petitioner is aggrieved by exhibition of document Nos. 5, 7, 8 & 9
on the ground that the attested copies of these documents have been
exhibited whereas the originals have not been produced and so, it is
asserted on behalf of petitioner that Inquiry Officer is biased against
petitioner. A Representation (Annexure A-22) seeking change of Inquiry
Officer was made by petitioner to respondent-Corporation on 23rd April,
2015, which stands rejected vide impugned order of 1 st September, 2015
(Annexure A-26). Petitioner has also made Representation (Annexure A-
23) to the Appellate Authority to respondent-Corporation on 27th August,
2015.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Representation
(Annexure A-23) to the Appellate Authority has been summarily rejected
by the Chairman-Managing Director (CMD) of respondent-Corporation
in the capacity of Chairman of the Appellate Authority, but the
Representation (Annexure A-23) ought to have been considered by the
Board of respondent-Corporation.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had
placed on record copy of inquiry proceedings containing examination and
cross-examination of witnesses i.e. MW-1 & MW-2 to submit that the
inquiry proceedings are not being conducted in consonance with the
principles of natural justice, as inadmissible documents are taken on
record.
Learned senior counsel for respondent-Corporation informs that the
Inquiry proceedings stand concluded on 16th October, 2015 and the
parties have been directed to file their respective written brief. He points
out that the Representation made by petitioner to the Appellate Authority
does not lie as the impugned orders (Annexures A-24 & A-26) are not
appealable.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the Representation (Annexure A-
22), impugned orders (Annexure A-24 & A-26) as well as material on
record, I find that merely because some documents have been taken on
record would not justify the change of Inquiry Officer, as I find that the
objection of petitioner has been duly noted in the inquiry proceedings and
the said objection has been over-ruled. Whether over-ruling of
petitioner's objection is justified or not cannot be pre-judged amidst
inquiry proceedings. On a bare perusal of the copy of deposition of the
witnesses as well as impugned order, I find that petitioner's prayer for
change of Inquiry Officer is not at all justified. The question of
admissibility/ inadmissibility of documents placed on record during
inquiry proceedings is left open to be considered at the final stage in the
inquiry proceedings.
Since the Inquiry proceedings stand virtually completed, therefore,
petitioner's prayer for change of Inquiry Officer cannot be entertained
while invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. As already observed
above, there is no justification for change of Inquiry Officer in the
circumstances of this case.
With above said observations, this petition and applications are
disposed of while not commenting on the merits of the case, lest it may
prejudice either side in inquiry proceedings.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 03, 2015
sk/r
