DEEPAK NARAYAN JOSHI Vs. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent no.1 in its employment w.e.f. 1.7.1987 to the post of Chemical Operator G.R.III. The Petitioner had already been granted promotions to the higher post from time to time and is presently he has been working in the post of Chemical Grade II (U) (U). It is the contention of the Petitioner that Respondent no.2 who is the Chief Manager of Respondent no.1 and disciplinary authority in case of the Petitioner by order dated 3.12.2011 placed the Petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 3.12.2011 and allegations is that the Petitioner forged the signature of Shri Sharad D.Patil Dy.General Manager (Personnel) of Respondent no.1 on his letter dated 20.9.2011 and that the said act amounts to serious and grave misconduct as well as criminal offence on the part of the Petitioner.

(3.) The Petitioner sent his reply dated 16.12.2011 denying the said charges. Thereafter on a criminal case was filed by Respondent no.1 bearing R.C.No.121 of 2011 against the Petitioner in the Court of JMFC, Khalapur, District Raigad alleging that the Petitioner had forged the signature of Shri Sharad D.Patil Dy.General Manager (Personnel) on his letter dated 20.9.2011. Subsequently on 2.1.2012 the Respondent no.2 appointed Mr.S.Bhatarcharjee General Manager (Production) of Respondent no.1 as Presenting Officer in the inquiry to be held in respect of such charge sheet dated 10.12.2011 at Exhibit E. By another letter dated 2.1.2012 (Exhibit F) the Respondent no.3 appointed Arjun H.Patil Advocate Respondent No.4 as an Inquiry Officer to hold and conduct inquiry in respect of the said Charge Sheet dated 10.12.2011. The Petitioner thereafter by his letter dated 13.11.2012 requested the Respondent no.2 to stay the disciplinary proceedings being held against him as the criminal case filed by the Respondent no.1 itself is on the same and similar subject matter alleging that the signature was forged by the Petitioner is pending in the Court of the JMFC. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that both the cases are found on the same set of facts. The Petitioner also called upon the Respondents to revoke the suspension order as the suspension from service is wholly unjust and unwarranted. It was further the contention of the Petitioner that the Expert Opinion dated 30.11.2011 is to be considered and evaluated by the learned JMFC,Khalapur in the said criminal case. The Petitioner as such requested the Inquiry Officer/Respondent No.4 to await the decision of the Respondent nos. 2 to 3 on this letter. But, however the Respondent no.4 rejected the said Application. The Petitioner also raised a contention that there was contravention of the standing orders dated 29.6.1968 as certified under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and thus rendering the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 liable to be penalized as provided under section 13 (2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It was also contended by the Petitioner that the Respondents had appointed Mr.Arjun H.Patil Advocate as an Inquiry Officer who is an outside person in contravention of the Standing order No.38 (C) of the Certified Standing Orders dated 29.6.1968, as per the said Standing Order, the Respondent no.1 can nominate Officer or Officers of the Respondent no.1 to hold such inquiry in the alleged acts of misconduct by the Petitioner. Despite of the correspondence and letters addressed to the Respondent no.1 with that regard and request of the Petitioner to stay the inquiry before the Inquiry officer having been not acceeded to, the Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.