1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. S. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 and Mr. R.
Roy, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 5.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
i. The impugned order dated 24.11.2023 under Annexure-
18 issued by the Opposite Party No.5 shall not be quashed
for being in confutation with the order of this Hon'ble
Court 24.08.2023 passed in WPC No. 5584 of 2023.
ii. The impugned order dated 24.11.2023 under Annexure-
18 issued by the Opposite Party No.5 shall not be quashed
for having been passed in a background of lack of
jurisdiction.
iii. The impugned order dated 24.11.2023 under
Annexure-18 issued by the Opposite Party No.5 shall not
be declared illegal and arbitrary. ;
iv. The disciplinary proceeding under Annexures 5,6
issued by Opp. Party No. 6 & Annexures 10 & 11 issued
by Opp. Party No. 8 against the petitioner shall not be
quashed.
v. The order dated 07.11.2016 under Annexure -14 issued
by the Opposite Party No.4 shall not be quashed for being
illegal & arbitrary.
vi. The Opp. Parties shall not be directed to reinstate the
service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause the Rule be made absolute.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray."
4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the
Petitioner vide charge memo dtd.09.01.2015 under Annexure-8,
Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order
dtd.07.11.2016 under Annexure-14, with passing of an order of
removal removing the Petitioner from his services. Appeal filed by
the Petitioner against such order of removal, was rejected by the
appellate authority vide order dtd.24.11.2023 under Annexure-18.
4.1. While assailing the impugned order of punishment, learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioner made a preliminary objection
with regard to initiation of the proceeding inter alia contending that
the proceeding since has been initiated by an authority, who is the
appellate authority of the Petitioner, in terms of the provisions
contained under WESCO Officers Service Regulation, more
particularly Regulation 51, the very initiation of the proceeding is
bad in the eye of law. Regulation 51 reads as follows:-
"Competent Authority for Disciplinary Action Appellate and Reviewing
Authority:
51. The competent Authority for Disciplinary Action, Appellate Authority and
Reviewing Authority for the purpose of disciplinary action and matters related
thereto shall, until otherwise determined, be as follows:-
Disciplinary:
4.2. Basing on the aforesaid Regulation, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner at the relevant point of
time since was discharging the duty of Junior Manager in E-2 grade,
which is not disputed, the Functional Director/Director HR was the
disciplinary authority, with the Managing Director as the appellate
authority.
4.3. It is contended that admittedly the proceeding against the
Petitioner was initiated on 09.01.2015 under Annexure-8 by the
Managing Director of the Company, who as per the aforesaid Rule
is the appellate authority. Accordingly, it is contended that since the
very initiation of the proceeding is bad in the eye of law, the order
of removal passed in the said proceeding vide order under
Annexure-14 so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order
under Annexure-18 are not sustainable in the eye of law and
requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. R. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the TPWODL on the
other hand while supporting the impugned order of removal so
passed under Annexure-14, confirmed vide order under Annexure-
18, made his submission contending inter alia that in view of the
provisions contained under Regulation 54 of the aforesaid Service
Regulation, the power conferred under these Regulations to any
Officer or Authority can be wholly exercised by any officer or
Authority superior in rank, unless the context otherwise stipulates. It
is accordingly contended that the proceeding in question was
initiated by the Managing Director, even though he was the
appellate authority, in terms of the provisions contained under the
Regulation 54 of the Regulation. Regulation 54 reads as follows:-
"Existing Decisions of the Board or Committee of the
Board to Continue Till Altered:
54.
1. Where these Regulations required that any matter shall be
in accordance with the decision of the Board or the
Committee of the Board and where such a matter is covered
by decisions or instructions of the Board or the Committee of
the Board already taken or given, such decisions or
instructions shall continue to be in force and until such
decisions or instructions are altered by the Board or the
Committee of the Board.
2 The power conferred under these Regulations to any officer
or Authority can be wholly exercised by any officer or
Authority superior in rank, unless the context otherwise
stipulated.
3. The MD may delegate the powers vested in him under
these Regulations to any other Director and in the case of
such delegation the Director shall be entitled to exercise the
powers in the same manner as the MD is entitled to."
5.1. Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 5 further
made his submission contending inter alia that in view of the
decision taken in the minutes of the 74 th Meeting of the Board of
Directors on dt.08.04.2011 so available under Annexure-C/3,
Petitioner since was continuing as a Junior Manager, the Managing
Director even though the appellate authority, but in view of the
provisions contained under Regulation 54 of the aforesaid
Regulation, the proceeding has been rightly initiated by the
Managing Director, which requires no interference of this Court.
5.2. Making all these submission, learned counsel appearing for the
TPWODL contended that the order of punishment has been rightly
passed against the Petitioner so confirmed by the appellate authority.
It is also contended that there is no allegation that principle of
natural justice was not followed while dealing with the proceeding
in question.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner
while continuing as a Junior Manager under Opp. Party No. 3, the
proceeding in question was initiated against him vide charge memo
dtd.09.01.2015 under Annexure-8.
6.1. It is not disputed that such a proceeding was initiated by the
Managing Director of the Company. Placing reliance on the
provisions contained under Regulation 51 of the WESCO Officer's
Service Regulation, it is found that during the relevant point of time
Managing Director was the appellate authority and such a
proceeding could have been initiated by the Functional
Director/Director, HR.
6.2. Since it is not disputed that such a proceeding has been initiated
by the appellate authority who happens to be the Managing Director
of the Company, it is the view of this Court that the very initiation
of the proceeding is not in accordance with the Regulation and
accordingly the same could not have been initiated against the
Petitioner by the appellate authority, with passing of the impugned
order of removal under Annexure-14, so confirmed vide order under
Annexure-18.
6.3. Since the very initiation of the proceeding is not in terms of the
Regulation 51 of the Service Regulation, this Court is of the view
that the very initiation of the proceeding is bad in the eye of law and
consequentially the order of removal passed under Annexure-14,
confirmed vide order under Annexure-18.
6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash
the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-8 and
the order of removal passed under Annexure-14, confirmed vide
order under Annexure-18. While quashing the proceeding
dt.09.01.2025 under Annexure-8, and the order of punishment
passed under Annexure-14, confirmed vide order under Annexure-
18, this Court allows the writ petition and directs Opp. Party No. 3
to reinstate the Petitioner in his services with passing of an
appropriate order within a period of two (2) weeks hence. Break
period of the service be regularized in accordance with law and on
notional basis.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
