YESHWANT REDKAR Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 7th April, 1992 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 20th October, 1992 confirming the said order of dismissal. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and at the material time was working as Deputy Manager (Acting), Oil Movement and Storage Department. The petitioners duty included carrying out random checking of the weight of the tankers that were loaded in the refinery. On 14th February, 1986 the petitioner was on duty in the shift described as 8 x 4 shift. As part of his duty, the petitioner had carried out random checking of 8 tankers on that day and had countersigned on the weighment slips in respect of the said 8 tankers. On the same day another tanker bearing registration No. MCU-1914 was also loaded in the refinery. The said tanker was weighed and was allowed to go out. It transpired that excess quantities of carbon oil had been loaded on to the said tanker which were not mentioned in the weighment slip. The said tanker was intercepted by the police while carbon oil was being illegally transferred from it to another tanker since the police had received certain prior information and on that information they were keeping watch on tanker No. MCU-1914. During the investigation, the petitioner was arrested by the CID in connection with theft of products of the respondent No. 1 and other related offences. Besides the petitioner, about 50 other employees of respondent No. 1 were arrested by the police for similar offences. Later on the petitioner was released on bail.

(2.) BY charge-sheet dated 17th December, 1986 the petitioner was charge- sheeted by the respondent No. 1 as per the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules that while the petitioner was on duty on 14th March, 1986 in 8 x 4 shift gate-pass was signed and issued in respect of tanker No. MCU-1914 and the billing to the customer was also based on the quantity recorded on the gate-pass/weighment slip and further that they had received a letter from the police about the arrest of the petitioner under section 379 read with sections 120-B, 411, 413 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent No. 1 by this chargesheet charged the petitioner that as per para 114 of the service rules, the loading of excess CBFS had resulted in a loss to the Corporation and amounted to acts of serious misconduct, namely, (i) fraud, dishonesty in connection with the business of the Corporation: (ii) acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation: and (iii) commission of the act which amounts to a criminal offence involving moral turpitude. It was alleged that the petitioner had signed the shift gate-pass in respect of the said tanker. The petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the inquiry and asked to submit his explanation. By his letter dated 29th December, 1986 the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him. As the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry to investigate the charges levelled against the petitioner. It may be stated at this stage that during the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, by his judgement and order dated 6th July, 1989 discharged the petitioner as according to the learned Magistrate, there was no admissible evidence against the petitioner.

(3.) AT the departmental enquiry the employees who had allegedly made confessional statements before the police and the Judicial Magistrate who implicated the petitioner were cited as departments witnesses. Two of the said witnesses appeared pursuant to the summons sent by the Enquiry Officer and stated that they were unable to depose till the enquiry against them was over. The 3rd witness, one Mr. P. V. Dhuri, who had also allegedly made a confessional statement before the police, declined to appear in the enquiry. The petitioner had raised an objection before the Enquiry Officer that the statements alleged to be the confession of the three co-accused could not be used against him as these persons had neither deposed nor been cross-examined in the enquiry. However, this objection was overruled by the Enquiry Officer holding that even hearsay evidence was permissible. Finally, the management examined only two witnesses in support of the chargesheet, namely, Mr. Ram Mohan Rao, who was examined as a formal witness to prove certain documents, and Mr. A. L. Khillari, Sub-Inspector of Police, who had carried out the investigation and before whom accused P. V. Dhuri had made confessional statement. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25th February, 1992 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved by the evidence on record. It is an admitted position that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner till the petitioner was dismissed from service by the impugned order.