MAHESH SHARMA Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was working with Respondent No. 1 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (,,BHEL) as an Assistant Cashier (,,AC), has filed this writ petition for a declaration that the entire enquiry proceedings instituted against him beginning with an order dated 28th July 1993 and concluding with the punishment imposed on the Petitioner of reduction of pay by four stages for a period of four years by the order dated 22nd April 1997 of the Disciplinary Authority (,,DA) are illegal and unconstitutional. THE Petitioner prays for a further direction to the Respondents to restore the pay and allowances of the Petitioner with consequential benefits.

(2.) THE Petitioner was working with Respondent BHEL as an AC. A report of internal audit of the BHEL submitted in June 1993 pointed out several irregularities in the reimbursements claimed by one Mr. Deepak Dhawan who was the Private Secretary to the Director (Personnel). THE claims were admitted for payment by one Mr. S.S. Sharma, the Accounts Officer (,,AO), directly without routing them through an Accountant as was the usual practice. THE payments were then made by the Petitioner as the AC. THE report of the internal audit pointed out to the nexus between Mr. Deepak Dhawan, Mr. S.S. Sharma and the Petitioner. According to the Respondents, Mr. S.S. Sharma was called by the Committee conducting the internal audit and confronted with the said vouchers. Mr. Deepak Dhawan was also called and asked to repeat the allegation against Mr. S.S. Sharma. It is stated that when confronted, Mr. S.S. Sharma, admitted the allegations leveled against him. THEreafter, the Petitioner was also called and he too admitted that he had given some cash memos to Mr. Deepak Dhawan and obtained payment against those cash memos.

(3.) IN the enquiry which took place seven documents were exhibited by the BHEL and four witnesses examined. On behalf of the Petitioner four documents were exhibited and no witness examined. IN the inquiry report dated 8th April 1997, after discussing the evidence, the INquiry Officer (IO) held that the first article of charge stood proved. The signatures of the three officers on the report of the internal audit as well as the separate statements made by Mr. S.S. Sharma and the Petitioner were exhibited in the enquiry and also proved by the management witness. It was held by the IO that although there was no evidence to show with effect from which period the Petitioner was party to the collusion/understanding and that there was no evidence to show that he had made the entire payment of over Rs. 3.14 lakh, "it was clear that CO2, i.e., Petitioner was a party to the collusion/understanding and pursuant thereto he had given some cash memos to Mr. Deepak Dhawan and obtained payment against them". The other two articles of charge were held to be not proved.