ARNAB BHATTACHARJEE Vs. BENGAL CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the writ petition is the order of dismissal bearing No. MD/AB/13-14/29.09/19-2020-2021, dated June 5, 2020, and the procedure adopted in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by issuance of a charge sheet bearing No. MD/AB/13-14/ 29.09/19, dated April 18, 2019. The petitioner has impugned the said order of dismissal and the disciplinary proceedings on several grounds, namely, lack of jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, vague and motivated charge sheet, failure to prove the charges, procedural irregularities, violation of the principles of natural justice, denial of his prayer for production of witnesses, non-issuance of a second show cause notice, violation of the service rules and harsh and disproportionate punishment, which did not commensurate with the charges.

(2.) The disputes and the allegations as averred in the writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) Mr. Routh learned Advocate for the petitioner contended before this Court, that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of issuance of the charge sheet up to the final order of dismissal was irregular, contrary to the service rules, mala fide, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of the natural justice. That the charges against the petitioner, were not proved. That the inquiring authority had gone beyond the charges and had extended the scope of the inquiry to various issues which were not a part of the Articles and Memorandum of charges. The charge sheet was vitiated and must be quashed. He further contented that, the charge sheet was issued by the Managing Director (AC) and Director (Finance) (hereinafter referred as to the said authority), who was not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, according to the company itself. The company 's case was that the Board was the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the reviewing authority. Thus the charge sheet was issued by an authority not authorized by the law. Mr. Routh 's contrary argument was that assuming the Managing Director (AC) and Director (Finance) was the disciplinary authority, then the Board could not have issued the order of punishment. He objected to the records with regard to the delegation of power of the Board which were not before the inquiring authority.