Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 368 (CAL)

Gautam Jeswara v. Chairman, Kolkata Port Trust

2019-03-15

SUBRATA TALUKDAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Under challenge in this writ petition is the order of punishment dated 8th of December, 2006 issued against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) of the Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) reducing the pay of the petitioner for a period of two years. The impugned order of punishment further stipulated that during the said period of two years the petitioner shall not earn any increments. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the further fact that the impugned order of punishment has the consequence of delaying his future increments. It is submitted that the dues of the petitioner connected to his suspension period are also outstanding. 3. The petitioner also seeks the setting aside of the Order of the Appellate Authority (AA), KoPT dated the 13th of February, 2007 affirming the Order of the DA in the Disciplinary Proceedings (DP) dismissing his appeal. 4. The petitioner alleges mala fides and a pre-determined mind on the part of his employer, the KoPT, acting through the agency of the DP, on the ground that as a resident of a rented quarter allotted by KoPT at Taratala Labour Colony (the Colony), the petitioner protested against illegal activities of influential officers within the KoPT carried out within the precincts of the Colony. Specific complaints were lodged by the petitioner as General Secretary of the Association of families living in the Colony against the Labour Officer and the Labour Advisor-cum-Industrial Relations Officer, holding such officers to be personally responsible for the sorry state of affairs of KoPT employees living in the Colony. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14th of July, 2004 the Deputy Chairman, KoPT acting as DA placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of a DP. The petitioner stood charged with accepting illegal gratification from a representative of a Clearing and Forwarding Agent (C & F Agent). 6. The order of the suspension was however revoked on the 28th of January, 2005 and the petitioner was asked to report for duty on the same date. The petitioner alleges illegal action on the part of his employer/the KoPT for withholding salaries due and payable for the period of his suspension, i.e. between 14th of July, 2004 to 28th of January, 2005. 7. The petitioner alleges illegal action on the part of his employer/the KoPT for withholding salaries due and payable for the period of his suspension, i.e. between 14th of July, 2004 to 28th of January, 2005. 7. On 11th of September, 2004 the petitioner was formally charged by issuing a chargesheet (CS) for receiving illegal gratification from an agent of a C & F Agency on the 2nd of July, 2004 and, also on the ground of overstaying in his office beyond scheduled duty hours. The petitioner submits that the Labour Advisor-cum-Industrial Relations Officer did not enjoy the power of issuing the CS since the DA of the petitioner in the Traffic Department was the Traffic Manager. It is also submitted that for the first time through the CS the petitioner was informed that while being present at Netaji Subhash Dock Gate No. 8 (NSD Gate No.8) on the 2nd of July, 2004, he accepted a bribe of Rs. 100/- from a personnel of a C & F Agency to facilitate the release of three container trucks. 8. The reply to the CS was filed by the petitioner on 8th of December, 2004 reiterating allegations of conspiracy against the aforesaid two officers of the Labour Department, KoPT. The enquiry was finally conducted by the substituted Enquiry Officer (EO) and continued between the 15th of December, 2005 to the 6th of September, 2006. On behalf of the Management/KoPT, seven witnesses were examined and documents exhibited. The Charged Officer (CO)/the petitioner examined two defence witnesses. 9. The report of the EO was supplied to the petitioner and was replied to by the petitioner on the 24th of November, 2006 essentially reiterating his contentions against the CS. 10. However, on the 8th of December, 2006, the Traffic Manager/DA passed the impugned order of withholding increments. Withholding of increments had the cascading effect of adversely impacting future increments of the petitioner. The period between July, 2004 and January, 2005 was treated to be as on suspension. 11. The appeal against the Order of the DA was dismissed by the AA on the 30th of November, 2007. The petitioner alleges that the appeal was deliberately kept pending by the AA and only after the petitioner was compelled to bring the pendency to the notice of the Chairman, KoPT, that the appeal was finally decided, albeit against the petitioner. 12. Mr. Niranjan Ganguli, Ld. The petitioner alleges that the appeal was deliberately kept pending by the AA and only after the petitioner was compelled to bring the pendency to the notice of the Chairman, KoPT, that the appeal was finally decided, albeit against the petitioner. 12. Mr. Niranjan Ganguli, Ld. Counsel appearing for petitioner, elaborately takes this Court to the evidence on record in the DP. Ld. Counsel submits that applying the test of preponderance of probabilities to the DP, it would plainly appear that the petitioner has been victimized. 13. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that excepting the personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) claiming to be on duty at NSD Gate No.8 on the 2nd of July, 2004, other Management Witnesses (MWs) have denied the transaction of money by and between one Mr. Behera, acting on behalf of the C & F Agent and the petitioner posted as Gate Warder at the said NSD Gate No. 8. 14. Mr. Ganguli submits that from the evidence of the MWs it would appear that both Mr. Behera and Mr. Noor Khan, claiming to be acting as representatives of the concerned C & F Agent, one Universal C & F Agency, have stated before the EO that they were forced to sign a statement implicating the petitioner for receiving Rs. 100/- to allow the passage of three container trucks. 15. Mr. Ganguli, in his arguments, relies upon the following pieces of evidence in support of his above referred stand:- "Shri R. Behera (MW-1) Do you understand the content of the statement that you have made under your signature dated 2.7.04 which here has been submitted as ME-1? No Sir. The statement was made under pressure from Shri S.K. Mondal, Sr. Commandant, CISF at the time when I was trying to get some change of currency note from the Jetty Sarkar and other transporters present at the exit point (Gate No.8 NSD) for payment of trip money to the lorry drivers. At that moment Shri S.K. Mondal apprehended me under allegation that I am giving bribe to the Gate Warder at 8 NSD Gate and forced me to write the statement. Did you pay any money to the Gate Warder Shri Gautam Jeswara on 2.7.04 while taking out 3 loaded lorries at Gate No.8 NSD? No I did not. Md. Noor Khan (MW-2) Yes I may be allowed to cross-examined. Did you pay any money to the Gate Warder Shri Gautam Jeswara on 2.7.04 while taking out 3 loaded lorries at Gate No.8 NSD? No I did not. Md. Noor Khan (MW-2) Yes I may be allowed to cross-examined. My first question to Noor Khan is can you recollect at what time you have signed on ME-1 on 02.07.04? As far as I can recollect it was dark and at some time in the evening. Can you narrate the incidents on that evening of 02.04.04. I was called over my mobile phone by Shri R. Behera in the evening of 02.07.04 at Gate No.8 NSD. On reaching the spot I was asked by one CISF officer to sign on a document (ME-1) which I did. The CISF officer did not clarify to my question on what the matter was all about. What did you do after that? I came back with Sri R. Behera. Did you read the document (ME-1) which you signed as per instruction of the CISF officer on 02.07.04. Do you understand that content of this document (ME-1) and if so what remarks do you have in this regard. I am reading out the statement in the document (ME-1). Yes I understand the content of this document (ME-1). I have not paid any bribe during the course of my work and I do not expect that Shri R. Behera have made any such gesture on 02.07.04 or not? Have you reported the incident to the clearing agent (M/s. Universal Clearing & Forwarding Agency) or to the Port Authorities or the local police most specifically that you have been asked to sign a document (ME-1) without really understanding the content of it by a CISF officer at Gate No.8 NSD on 02.07.04 outside the Gate Warder Officer in an ill lighted place. No I have not made any report in this regard to any such authorities or to the clearing agent. I would like to clarify that since the CISF officer had said that there is no problem as such and/or that the problem is over and I was simply asked to sign I did not feel like investigating the matter or reporting the matter to any authorities. Shri S.K. Mondal, Ex. Sr. I would like to clarify that since the CISF officer had said that there is no problem as such and/or that the problem is over and I was simply asked to sign I did not feel like investigating the matter or reporting the matter to any authorities. Shri S.K. Mondal, Ex. Sr. Commandant, CISF, KoPT (MW-3) You have said that the you have noticed that Shri R. Behera was quietly passing a hundred rupee note to the Gate Warder. Did you seize that note? No it has been already handed over to the Gate Warder by Sri R. Behera before I could apprehend Shri R. Behera. Did you go inside the Gate Warder's office to apprehend the said Gate Warder who according to you was the culprit to receive the bribe? No, since I know that the Gate Warder is an employee of KoPT. I did not want to create a nuisance there neither did I want to create an awkward situation or a bad situation in front of the port users who have collected on the spot. Moreover it would have also disrupted work. Rather I felt that I should report the matter to the KoPT authorities for appropriate action. As a senior officer of CISF you must be aware that by not apprehending the culprit without concrete proof is in a way creating more nuisance. I submit that I have 36 years of experience in the paramilitary forces like CISF. I consider the fact that Shri R. Behera has himself confessed that he has paid an amount of Rs.100/- to the Gate Warder as bribe to me and my team of CISF officers and that I and my team of CISF officials present at Gate No.8 NSD on 02.07.04 at the time of the incident have ourselves seen Shri R. Nehera handing over the note to the Gate Warder at Gate No 8 NSD around 19-30 hours is I consider as evidence enough. Had I arrested/apprehended the Gate Warder at the spot at the time I feared that the unions would have intervened immediately aggravating the situation which mat have even led to stoppage of port work resulting to loss of revenue. As a member of paramilitary force you are aware that carrying a firearm in the hand do not necessarily mean that you have the power to shoot. As a member of paramilitary force you are aware that carrying a firearm in the hand do not necessarily mean that you have the power to shoot. The CISF officials are authorized to carry firearm as paramilitary force. They are not authorized to shoot good citizens of this country by this weapon but they have every right, rather are authorized to shoot if required for apprehending criminals/antisocial escaping the clutches of law or evading lawful order as also enemies of this country. Myself and my team of officials present at the spot at Gate No.8 NSD on 02.07.04 at around 1930 hours have seen/watched one Shri R. Behera of paying bribe to the Gate Warder at Gate No.8 NSD at the concerned date and time he was carrying the hundred rupee note in his hand and walked passed in from of us and paid the note to the Gate Warder at the spot. We also heard him state that the 100 rupee note was for payment for release of 3 trailers loaded with containers. What is the distance between the spot at which you were standing with your team of CISF officials and the Gate Warder's officer counter? Approximately 5 to 7 yards. Did you enquire to your Asst. Commandant Shri B.K. Pattanayak whether the said witness Mr. Noor Khan or Mr. Noor Mohammed who was signed statement as witness was present at the spot at the time of the incident? Yes I asked Shri B. Ghatak, Inspector, CISF who had brought the concerned recorded statement to me at my office on the next day whether the witness i.e. one Noor Mahammed/Noor Khan was present at the spot at the time of the recording of the statement of Shri R. Behera. Shri B. Ghatak, Inspector (Exe) CISF (MW-5) Did you notice Shri R. Behera approaching Gate Warder's Office of Gate No.8 on 2.7.04 at about 19.30 hrs. with hundred Rupee note in his hand? No. I did not see Shri R. Behera approaching Gate Warder's Office at Gate No. 8 on 2.7.04 at about 19.30 hrs. with hundred Rupee note in his hand. Did you hear the conversation between Shri R. Behera and Shri Goutam Jeswara, Gate Warder more specifically that he (Shri R. Behera) was paying Rs. 100/- to the Gate Warder Shri Goutam Jeswara for passing out of three trucks at Gate No.8 NSD? with hundred Rupee note in his hand. Did you hear the conversation between Shri R. Behera and Shri Goutam Jeswara, Gate Warder more specifically that he (Shri R. Behera) was paying Rs. 100/- to the Gate Warder Shri Goutam Jeswara for passing out of three trucks at Gate No.8 NSD? No. I did not hear the conversation between Shri R. Behera and Shri Goutam Jeswara, Gate Warder as I was a little away from the Gate Warder's Office. Did you notice how many pesons were working in the Gate Warder's Office as Gate Warder on 2.7.04 at about 19.30 hrs? I can confirm that Shri Goutam Jeswara was present at the Gate Warder's Office at Gate No.8 NSD on 2.7.04 at about 19.30 hrs. but I cannot recollect whether any other person were also present at the Gate Warder's office at that time. Shri U.C. Bhowal, Inspector Executive/EXE (MW-6) Have you seen the transaction of money between Mr. Behera and Gate Warder, Mr. Goutam Jeswara? No. I have not seen the transaction of money. Shri Bhowal you have deposed on 03.03.2006 in the enquiry that you have heard one person talking with the Gate Warder and say to him "take Rs. 100/- for passing out the 3 nos. of trailors along with the containers". Have you noticed how many persons were working in the Gate Warder's office at that time? There were another person present along with Shri Jeswara, Gate Warder in the Gate Warder's office on 02.07.2004 at about 1930 hours. Did you know that person present in the Gate Warder's office along with Shri Jeswara on 02.07.2004? No I do not know the identity of the person who was present in the Gate Warder's office along with Shri Jeswara on 02.07.2004. Can you confirm whether Rs. 100/- was actually paid by ne Shri Behera to the Gate Warder at No.8 NSD on 02.07.2004 at about 1930 hours? I have already submitted earlier that I have not seen the transaction of money. As a senior officer of CISF, was it not your duty to go inside the Gate warder's office and search the person working as Gate Warder, whom the money has allegedly been paid by Shri Behera, for proper and faithful performance of your duty? Can it be assumed that you have failed in your duty showing such laxity in such a serious affair? Can it be assumed that you have failed in your duty showing such laxity in such a serious affair? My senior commandant Shri S.K. Mondal was present at that time and being a junior office working under him I have to work as per his instructions in a lawful manner. Searching of the person (in this instant the Gate Warder) meant searching of the Gate Warder's office which is not according to the rules of Cr PC." 16. On the strength of the above noted evidence, Mr. Ganguli asserts that even the MWs are equivocal in their stand whether the transaction of money actually took place as alleged by and between the C & F Agent and the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the MWs have been unable to confirm that the monetary transaction at all took place on the fateful day, i.e. the 2nd of July, 2004 at the behest of Mr. Behera, the C & F Agent qua the petitioner. 17. Mr. Ganguli submits that the alleged incident took place at 7:30 pm and the MWs are on record stating, inter alia, that at the relevant point of time the area was not lit enough to visually confirm the approach and exchange of the alleged gratification by the principal actors, viz. Mr. Behera and the petitioner. 18. Mr. Ganguli relies upon the authority of 2012 (5) SCC 242 in support of the proposition that the employer does not enjoy unfettered discretion to classify all acts of omission or commission as misconduct. There may be acts such as the alleged overstay of the petitioner at NSD Gate No.8 after close of his duty hours which do not qualify to be misconduct at all. Submitting that the petitioner was denied the benefit of treating his overstay (supra) for the purpose of finishing his pending work, Mr. Ganguli submits that the DA took the position most convenient to him for implicating the petitioner. In support of his arguments, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the authority of AIR 1984 SC 1361 . 19. Next, for the proposition that the authority issuing the CS must be competent to do so and must be the DA of the CO, Mr. Ganguli relies upon the authority of 2017 (1) CHN (Cal) 642. In support of his arguments, Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the authority of AIR 1984 SC 1361 . 19. Next, for the proposition that the authority issuing the CS must be competent to do so and must be the DA of the CO, Mr. Ganguli relies upon the authority of 2017 (1) CHN (Cal) 642. It is reiterated that the CS against the petitioner was issued by the Labour Advisor-cum-Industrial Relations Officer, who was not the DA of the petitioner. The DA of the petitioner was the Traffic Manager. 20. It is therefore submitted that the issuance of the CS and the DP stood vitiated at its very root. Since the CS has not been issued by the authority competent to issue it at all, the subsequent proceedings in the DP stand untenable in law. 21. In support of his above referred proposition, Mr. Ganguli relies upon the authority of 1978 (2) CLJ 316. It is submitted that even if interim powers are conferred on any officer in the absence of the DA, the conferment of such interim powers do not make such officer eligible to issue the CS which stands in the exclusive domain of the DA. Such action, if taken by any officer, shall be equivalent to usurping the statutory scheme under which KoPT is expected to function. 22. Next, assailing the report of the EO and the findings of the DA, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the petitioner/CO in the DP was not considered in correct perspective. It is alleged that the DP gave primacy to the evidence of the management/ the employer/ KoPT to create a situation of preponderance of probabilities in favour of the employer. 23. Mr. Ganguli submits that the evidence on record of the principal parties to the alleged transaction of bribe giving and bribe taking is inconclusive on the monetary transaction. However, such evidence was not given importance in the DP and notwithstanding the inconclusive nature of the evidence, the petitioner was implicated on the test of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, Mr. Ganguli submits that the DP shows non-application of mind as well as likelihood of bias on the part of the DA. Accordingly, it is submitted on the authority of 2006 (4) Supreme 578 that the findings in the DP are liable to be set aside. 24. Therefore, Mr. Ganguli submits that the DP shows non-application of mind as well as likelihood of bias on the part of the DA. Accordingly, it is submitted on the authority of 2006 (4) Supreme 578 that the findings in the DP are liable to be set aside. 24. It is further argued on the authorities of 2008 (1) Supreme 617 and AIR 1990 Supreme 1984 that it is a sine-qua-non of every facet of administrative law that action in the DP must carry with it the reflection of minimum reasons. It is clear from the record of the present DP that the minimum reasons have not been ascribed at every stage up to the appellate level. 25. Per contra, Ms. Swati Agarwal, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents/ KoPT, led by Mr. Niloy Sengupta, Ld. Advocate, submits that there is no infirmity in the action taken in the DP. 26. Ms. Agarwal relies on a Memo No. ADMN/3894/7 dated the 26th of July, 2004 addressed to all Heads of Department by the Secretary, KoPT, wherein it is stated as follows:- "Sub: Exercising functions of Appointing Authority in respect of Class III & IV employees. Further since LA & IRO is now functioning as Traffic Manager in-charge, the powers Appointing Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority in respect of Class-III & IV employees of Traffic Department will be exercised by LA & IRO. Accordingly, in partial supersession of this office letter of even number dated 6th January, 2004, the powers of Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority will be exercised by superior officers/HODs as detailed below in respect of Class III & IV employees of those departments which are not handed by HODs appointed by Central Government." 27. Accordingly, the Labour Advisor-cum-Industrial Relations Officer exercised the functions of the Traffic Manager/ the DA qua the petitioner. Since there was specific conferment of powers on the Labour Adviser to act as the DA in respect of Class III and Class IV staff, inclusive of the writ petitioner, the principle of interim conferment of powers relied upon by Mr. Ganguli, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the authority of a Concurrent Bench of this Court as reported in 1978 (2) CLJ (6) cannot apply to the present facts. 28. Ganguli, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the authority of a Concurrent Bench of this Court as reported in 1978 (2) CLJ (6) cannot apply to the present facts. 28. It is submitted that the power of suspension and the imposition of major penalties against the petitioner were strictly in terms of Rules 6 & 7 of the KoPT Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short the 1987 Regulations). Therefore, having regard to the fact that the inquiry was conducted following due process, the Writ Court ought not to normally intervene. 29. Ld. Advocate for KoPT points out that since, in the present facts, the employer/ KoPT has lost confidence in the writ petitioner/CO on the ground of corruption, it is not appropriate for the Court to interfere with the punishment which is proportionate to the offence. In support of the above proposition reliance is placed on the authority of 2000 SCC Online Allahabad 867 DB. 30. Reliance is also placed on AIR 1990 SC 1984 , AIR 2005 SC 3742 , 1995 Lab IC 748 for the proposition that when the DA has given reasons for its conclusion, the AA need not give separate reasons for agreeing with the DA. In a situation where the DA has applied its mind to the evidence placed by the CO and the AA has concurred with the findings of the DA, no further reasons are required. 31. It is submitted that the preponderance of probabilities lies against the petitioner having regard to the existing facts. The preponderance of probabilities is the guiding beacon in a DP. The above stated legal position has been emphasised in 2006 (4) SCC 265 . 32. Relying on the authority of 2001 (Suppl.) SCC 575, Ld. Advocate for KoPT submits that the Court ought not to interfere with the findings in a DP when such findings are reasonable and probable to the facts. 33. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is required to first notice the quality of evidence tendered in the DP. Admittedly, MW-I and MW-II have through their evidence retracted from the charges levelled against the petitioner in the CS. Both MW I and MW II have turned hostile on the issue that in their statements as recorded on the 2nd of July, 2004, i.e. the day of the incident, they implicated the petitioner. 34. Admittedly, MW-I and MW-II have through their evidence retracted from the charges levelled against the petitioner in the CS. Both MW I and MW II have turned hostile on the issue that in their statements as recorded on the 2nd of July, 2004, i.e. the day of the incident, they implicated the petitioner. 34. Second, this Court must also notice that the MWs have not narrated with precision the events of 2nd July, 2004. In other words, the MWs have been less than consistent in their evidence connected to the alleged tendering of money to the petitioner at NSD Gate No. 8 at around 7.30 pm on 2nd July, 2004. It has been narrated in their evidence that the distance between NSD Gate No.8 and NSD Gate No.7 as well as be distance between the CISF personnel stationed at NSD Gate No.8 and the office of the Gate Warder, were such as to make it impossible to detect with precision the alleged collusion between the principal actors, viz. the petitioner and MW I. 35. However, on the other hand, this Court must notice the clear testimony of MW-III vouching in favour of the incident having taken place on 2nd of July, 2004 and MW-I being nabbed on the spot. Clearer, to the mind of this Court, is the evidence of MW-IV which, notwithstanding the situational shortcomings connected to clear vision and audibility associated with the incident of 2nd July, 2004, is unimpeachable in its assertion that the exchange between the only two principal actors, i.e. the petitioner and MW I at NSD Gate No.8 could be actually perceived. 36. This Court must now notice that even if the quality of the evidence is proportionately apportioned between the Management and the Defence, it would be farfetched to conclude that the swing of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the petitioner. From the admitted facts on record it is found by this Court that the petitioner was not expected to be present at all at the end of his duty hours at NSD Gate No.8 on the 2nd of July, 2004. The allotted duty hours on the 2nd of July, 2004, i.e. the date of the incident, for the afternoon/second shift was between 15.30 hours to 22.30 hours and the duty was allotted to DW-I. The afternoon shift duty was preceded by the general shift duty allotted to the petitioner. 37. The allotted duty hours on the 2nd of July, 2004, i.e. the date of the incident, for the afternoon/second shift was between 15.30 hours to 22.30 hours and the duty was allotted to DW-I. The afternoon shift duty was preceded by the general shift duty allotted to the petitioner. 37. Therefore, at the time of the incident at 19.30 hours, DW-I and, not the petitioner, was required to be present at NSD Gate No.8 for discharging the functions of a Gate Warder. It is relevant to notice at this juncture that DW-I has tried to explain his absence for about 40 minutes on a call of nature at around 19.00 hours on 2nd July, 2004. In his evidence DW-I has stated that perhaps the petitioner went ahead to complete his balance work from the General Shift during the period when DW-I was absent from the spot. 38. The further explanation is offered by DW-I that a person reporting for duties in the General Shift in the morning may have to stay back beyond his duty hours for reconciling both manual and soft copy details of trucks using the NSD Gate No.8. Therefore, it is possible that the petitioner, who had reported for duties at NSD Gate No.8 for the first time on the 2nd of July, 2004, may have been required to stay back beyond duty hours to complete his allotted work. However, DW-I unequivocally states that he was the only Gate Warder assigned duties in the afternoon shift between 17.00 hours to 22.30 hours for the entire month of July 2004 at NSD Gate No.8. 39. While appreciating the above situation as presented by DW-I, this Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that even assuming the presence of the petitioner beyond duty hours at NSD Gate No.8 on 2nd of July, 2004 to be bona fide on the reasoning that the balance work of the General Shift was required to be completed, did not however authorise the petitioner to sign the clearance receipt or, the truck terminal receipt beyond 17.00 hours which could only be signed by DW-I. Therefore, when MW I presented himself at NSD Gate No. 8 at 7.30 pm on 2nd of July, 2004 the clearance receipt/ the truck terminal receipt could only be handed over to MW I with the signature of DW I and, not the petitioner. 40. 40. Therefore, this Court finds the evidence of DW I in support of the fact that the petitioner merely stayed back beyond duty hours on 2nd July, 2004 to finish his pending General Shift work to be of dubious authenticity. This Court must also notice that by his own admission DW I had temporarily left office to attend to the call of nature and, the petitioner could have waited for DW I to return for signing the clearance receipt/truck terminal receipt. The act of signing the receipt which was recovered from the possession of MW I points hugely to a transaction between the petitioner and MW I. 41. It is also not denied that MW I arrived at the counter of NSD Gate No.8 with the note of Rs.100/- which has been tried to be explained away on the ground that MW I wanted to get smaller denominations for paying his truck drivers. Needless to elaborate, the above explanation on the part of MW I appears to be laboured. 42. This Court must also notice that the decision relied upon by the petitioner as reported in 1978 (2) CLJ 2163 is distinguishable to the facts in the present case since the authority issuing the CS, in this case the Labour Officer, was not exercising interim powers but, a specific conferment of powers vide the Memo dated 26th of July, 2004 (supra) of the KoPT. Accordingly, in view of such express conferment, this Court does not find any infirmity in the action of the Labour Advisor-cum-Industrial Relations Officer in issuing the CS in terms of the express conferment of powers in terms of the Memo dated 26th of July, 2004. 43. Finally, this Court must observe that the petitioner availed of his defence in the DP right up to the stage of AA. The DP was held following due process. This Court must also observe that the punishment of reduction of increment considering the charge of receipt of illegal gratification cannot be said to be disproportionate to the offence. 44. This Court is also not ad idem with the stand taken by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the minimum reasons are not forthcoming in the DP. This Court must also observe that the punishment of reduction of increment considering the charge of receipt of illegal gratification cannot be said to be disproportionate to the offence. 44. This Court is also not ad idem with the stand taken by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the minimum reasons are not forthcoming in the DP. It is trite that the DP is required to throw up plausible reasons and, in the context of the present facts, the reasons offered in the DP cannot be substituted by an alternate possible view of this Court. 45. Wp 9754 (W) of 2008 stands accordingly dismissed. 46. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 47. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.