N.P. HENRY Vs. BAILADILA IRON ORE PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30-7-2000 (Annexure P-12), by which the penalty of "reduction of her (petitioner) pay by two incremental stages in her present grade with cumulative effect" was imposed. Further challenge is to the order dated 19-8-2000 (Annexure P-14), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30-7-2000 was dismissed. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in the year 1967. Subsequently, the management closed the school and the services of the petitioner was transferred and was appointed as Junior Assistant in the respondent-Bailadila Iron Ore Project. Afterwards, the petitioner was posted in the plant section to do the work of dispatcher. On account of heavy work load in the plant section, it was not possible for the petitioner to do the additional work of the production section, therefore, the petitioner refused to do the work of dispatcher of the production section. The respondent authorities without appreciating the problems faced by the petitioner on 11-12-1995 (Annexure P-2), issued the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted her reply to the charge-sheet on 17-10-1995 (Annexure P-3). The respondent authorities without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. After completion of the departmental enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are not found proved. In spite of the above, the respondent authorities again issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner on 5-4-1997 (Annexure P-6) on the same set of charges in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, there is no provision to issue another charge-sheet on the same set of facts; however, the respondent authorities initiated the departmental enquiry. In the said departmental enquiry, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Even the petitioner was not afforded full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as well as to produce the defence evidence. On completion of the enquiry on 17-6-2000 (Annexure P-10), a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment. The petitioner submitted her reply to the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, by order dated 30-7-2000 (Annexure P-12) the punishment was imposed, i.e., the penalty of "reduction of her pay by two incremental stages in her present Grade with cumulative effect". There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by order 19-8-2000 (Annexure P-14). Thus, this petition.

(3.) Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second charge-sheet, dated 5-4-1997 (Annexure P-6) is illegal and without any jurisdiction. In fact, there is no provision under the Standing Orders of the project to issue second charge-sheet on the same set of facts. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are not at all sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are non-speaking orders. Shri Shrivastava, would further submit that the Enquiry Officer failed to see that there is no evidence in the enquiry regarding the willful insubordination or disobedience of the petitioner. Before passing the impugned order, the respondent authorities have not complied with the provisions of the Standing Orders in its letter and spirit.