Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 355 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar v. Steel Authority of India Limited

2010-03-19

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
Order Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner in this writ application has challenged the impugned order dated 7.10.2003 of his removal from service (Annexure-7) passed by the Managing Director and the order dated 17.3.2004 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent Chairman whereby the petitioner's appeal against the impugned order of his removal from service was dismissed. 3. From the rival submissions, the facts which emerge are that on the charge of dereliction of duty and associated acts of misconduct, the petitioner and two other officers of the respondent SAIL were proceeded departmentally. The Inquiry Officer, upon taking the evidences and after giving opportunity to the delinquent employees to submit their defence and to cross-examine the witnesses, had considered the evidences which had surfaced and had recorded his finding that the charge against the petitioner as also against the other two delinquent officers stood proved. 4. Upon considering the report of inquiry, the disciplinary authority namely the Managing Director, SAIL had recorded the impugned order of punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. Against the impugned order of his removal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman. The appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application. 5. The impugned orders have been challenged mainly on the ground that the Inquiry Officer has allowed himself to be misled by the evidences on record and in fact the findings do not correspond to the weight of evidence collected. It is sought to be explained that the Inquiry Officer has failed to consider that despite the fact that the petitioner had adduced the documents whereby the superior officer had assigned the work of reconciliation of bank statements, to another employee, the finding of guilt against the petitioner has been recorded only on the basis of the oral statements that too of the two other officers who were proceeded departmentally on the same charge. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is apparently a case of non-application of mind and the findings recorded thereby are perverse and should not have been sustained by the appellate authority. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is apparently a case of non-application of mind and the findings recorded thereby are perverse and should not have been sustained by the appellate authority. The next leg of the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that even otherwise, the petitioner has been seriously discriminated even in the matter of punishment imposed on him inasmuch as, though the charges were almost identical against the petitioner and the two other co-officers, but while the other two were awarded lesser punishment, the petitioner has been chosen and selected for awarding the maximum penalty of removal from service. Learned counsel argues that the quantum of punishment as inflicted on the petitioner is totally disproportionate to the charge and this aspect of the petitioner's case and the grounds taken by him in his memorandum of appeal ought to have been considered by the respondent Chairman of SAIL in proper perspective. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent SAIL, by referring to the statements contained in several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, would seriously deny and dispute and entire claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was a responsible officer who was entrusted with responsible job and as per the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it has been proved that the petitioner had misconducted himself and committed dereliction of duty inasmuch as, he had failed to prepare and submit the bank reconciliation statements in time and as a result thereof, the fact that the cheques submitted by M/s Vikas Steel against materials lifted by him, had bounced and in absence of such information, similar cheques continued to be received from the party thereby resulting in serious loss and detriment to the company. Learned counsel informs that the fact that the petitioner was entrusted with the job of preparing the bank reconciliation statement, has been evidenced from the statements of the two senior officers and though both of them were also proceeded against on similar charges, but the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to even cross-examine the two officers and the findings of the Inquiry Officer was therefore based upon the evidences so collected. 7. 7. As regards the petitioner's contention that the other two officers who were also proceeded against, namely Sri S.P. Roy and Sri A. Kumar, have been awarded with lesser punishment, learned counsel would explain that the punishment imposed on them was commensurate with the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding the gravity of the charge against them. 8. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and upon going through the documents available on record, it appears that for identical charges, as many as three officers including the petitioner, were proceeded against. The main' charge against all the three of them was of negligence on their part in preparing the bank reconciliation statement and on account of such negligence, the company had suffered loss and detriment. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the statements of some of the witnesses, who according to him, have categorically deposed that the practice of accepting cheques from the said party namely M/s Vikas Steel instead of Bank Draft or Banker's Cheque, was in vogue ever since 1999 and this practice continued even during the tenure when the petitioner and other co-officers were ill office. Learned counsel has also invited attention to the documents adduced on behalf of the petitioner which do suggest that the work of preparing bank reconciliation statement was specifically assigned to one Mr. R.N. Das and not specifically to the petitioner. 10. From the aforesaid evidences it only appears that in addition to Mr. R.N. Das, the petitioner was also orally instructed by his superior in office to perform the work of reconciliation of bank statement. It is apparently on the basis of such inference that the Inquiry Officer has recorded his findings affirming that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 11. I find that in the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was afforded adequate and reasonable opportunity of defending his case and he was also given opportunity to submit his show cause replies against the proposed punishment. As such, the finding of the Inquiry Officer cannot possibly be called into question by this Court in absence of any impropriety or infirmity in the same. 12. As such, the finding of the Inquiry Officer cannot possibly be called into question by this Court in absence of any impropriety or infirmity in the same. 12. However, considering the fact that for the same charges, the other two officers who were the co-proceedees in the departmental proceeding, have been awarded lesser punishment, there appears force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge framed against him. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders Annexure-7 and Annexure-9 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned disciplinary authority namely the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro to reconsider the petitioner's case and take an appropriate decision on the quantum of punishment which may bt3 imposed on the petitioner keeping in view the fact that for same/identical charges, the other two proceedees were awarded lesser punishment. A decision on the above issue should be taken expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the same be effectively communicated to the petitioner. . With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents. .