HINDUSTAN CIBA-GEIGY LTD Vs. SURESH A KERKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondent No. 1 was working as security guard/watchman in appellant company from April 1972 and he was charge-sheeted for misconduct under Standing Order 33 (1) vide charge-sheet dated September 15, 1983. The appellants' case is that Respondent No. 1 was involved in a case of theft wherein he was arrested by the police and he was in police custody from August 27,1983 to September 1, 1983. On August, 29, 1983 Respondent No. 1 submitted an application to the appellants that he was on privilege leave from August 16, 1983 to August 30, 1983; that he was suffering from Typhoid from August, 25, 1983, he has been advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest for 20 days and as such privilege leave be extended from August 31, 1983 to September 14, 1983. The appellants directed the Respondent No. 1 to submit a medical certificate in support of 1 the said application and Respondent No. 1 filed a certificate dated September 3, 1983 of Dr. G. B. Chodankar wherein it was certified that Respondent No. 1 was under his treatment from August 29, 1983 to date and he was suffering from Jaundice and vomiting and was advised to take rest for 2 weeks. The appellants have further alleged that this certificate was in fact handed over by the Respondent No. 1 himself at the factory gate. The appellants were not satisfied with the said medical certificate and as such company doctor, namely, Dr. G. K. Salelkar was requested to examine Respondent No. 1. Dr. Salelkar examined Respondent No. 1 on September 12, 1983 and on clinical examination found that: Respondent No. 1 had neither fever nor Jaundice nor abnormality of liver or of any other system and he certified him to be fit for work. The appellants called for explanation of Respondent No. 1 and being not satisfied with the explanation, directed inquiry against Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated September 15, 1983. The sum and substance of the said letter/charge-sheet is that Respondent No. 1 had sought extension of leave on pretext of illness; that newspapers 'navprabha' dated August 30, 1983 and 'navhind Times' dated August 31, 1983 had reported the involvement of Respondent No. 1 in a theft case; that Respondent No. 1 had misrepresented vide letter dated August 29, 1983 that he was suffering from Typhoid and doctor had advised him complete bed rest for 20 days; that the factual position relating to involvement of theft was never reported by Respondent No. 1; that Respondent No. 1 was not under any medical treatment during the period he was in police custody and had misrepresented that he was suffering from Jaundice and vomiting by personally handing over the medical certificate; that Dr. Salelkar found that he was not suffering from Jaundice in the recent past. On the basis of the abovementioned facts the Respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted under Standing Order 33 (1) for: (1) concealing material and factual material from the company; (2) attempting to obtain leave of absence on false pretexts of illness; and (3) obtaining and producing a medical certificate on false representation to the doctor about his illness from which he was in fact not suffering.

(2.) STANDING Order 33 enumerates instances of misconduct. The Respondent No. 1 was charged under Standing Order 33 (1) which reads as : "commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises. . . . ".

(3.) IN the inquiry before the Inquiry Officer evidence was recorded on either side. Dr. Salelkar and Dr. Chodankar were also examined in the said inquiry. Though delinquent officer Respondent No. 1 had not presented himself for examination in his defence, yet, the Inquiry Officer permitted the Presenting Officer to cross-examine him. The Inquiry Officer not only relied upon the cross-examination of Respondent No. 1 but he disbelieved Dr. Chodankar in view of the testimony of Dr. Salelkar. The Inquiry Officer then found him guilty of the charges. After the report of the Inquiry Officer, appellants gave show cause notice to the Respondent No. 1 as to why he should not be discharged and after considering the reply filed by Respondent No. 1, the services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated.