TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD Vs. DILIP P PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) The First Respondent was engaged as Senior Clerk/typist with the Petitioner. On 24th May 1994, an incident took place which led to the institution of criminal proceedings against the First Respondent. At about 8.50 a.m. on that day, Shri S. M. Shetty who was Deputy Manager in charge of Administration and Personnel was carrying out his usual rounds of various Departments when he noticed the First Respondent coming out of the cabin of S.J. Belsare, Chief Mechanical Engineer on the third floor of the Mechanical Department at the Carnac Office. Mr. Belsare was absent at that time and hence, it is alleged that the Deputy Manager enquired as to why he was present in Mr.Belsare's cabin. To this, the First Respondent replied that he was using the telephone of the Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) for making an urgent personal call. The Deputy Manager brought to the notice of the First Respondent that entering the Cabin of the CME without permission and in his absence for making a personal telephone call was not permissible. The First Respondent, it is alleged, rudely answered, stating that he could use the telephone whenever required and there was no rule. Thereafter, the Deputy Manager, Shetty, reported the incident to Shri A. Ramadas, Assistant Chief Mechanical Engineer. The First Respondent followed the Deputy Manager into the Cabin of Shri Ramadas and was alleged to have shouted at him by saying the he was "lying and bluffing". Then, it is alleged that the First Respondent threatened Mr.Shetty, the Deputy Manager, by stating that he would "see you outside the office" and continued shouting for sometime.

(3.) On these allegations a disciplinary enquiry was convened and a charge sheet was issued on 3rd June 1994. Evidence was adduced in the course of departmental proceedings. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 23rd September 1996 came to the conclusion that in so far as the first part of the incident was concerned, though it is illegal for any employee to enter the cabin of a superior in order to make a personal call without permission, there was justification on the part of the First Respondent in doing so since his mother had taken ill the previous night and the purpose of the phone call was to enquire about her condition. However, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the second part of the incident which took place in the Cabin of Mr. A.Ramadas, ACME established a case of misconduct that would amount to riotous, disorderly, and indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment under Standing Order 24(j) or the commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment under Standing Order 24(k). The Enquiry Officer relied upon the evidence of Mr.S. M. Shetty who was an eye witness and who had allegedly been threatened by the First Respondent in the Cabin of Mr.A. Ramadas, ACME. The evidence of Mr. Shetty was to the following effect: