HINDUSTHAN STEEL, LTD. Vs. RABINDRA NATH BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10 Oct. 1977, passed in Title Suit No. 40 of 1971, whereby the said suit was decreed and it was declared that the order of removal of the plaintiff by notice, dated 11 Sept. 1969, was wrong, illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the plaintiff is continuing in service as Divisional Engineer under the defendant-company. The facts of the case as appeared from the plaint in brief are as follows : The plaintiff, Rabindra Nath Banerjee, was appointed as an Assistant Engineer under the defendant, Hindustan Steel, Ltd., in its Durgapur Steel Plant Unit in the scale of pay of Rs. 275-800 plus usual allowance in April 1957. Prior to this appointment the plaintiff worked under Braitwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Company, Ltd. and M/s. Mekenzies, Ltd., for about 10 years as an Assistant Engineer on an approximate remuneration of Rs. 400 per month with usual dearness allowance with effect from 12 Nov. 1962, and he was working in the same capacity till the middle of Nov. 1967. On or about 3 June 1967, the plaintiff received a Letter No. VIZ/Durgapur/ 1564/539 from the Assistant Vigilance Officer, Durgapur Steel Plant, whereby the plaintiff was asked to furnish a statement of his assets. The plaintiff accordingly submitted his statement of assets on 30 June 1967, and also returned the said letter as directed.

(2.) Thereafter on 17 July 1967, a letter was received by the plaintiff being No. C,ME/C/7 (i)/199, dated 15 July 1967, from the respondent whereby he was asked to go to village Kanksa, P. S Kanksa with all papers and document in connection with the construction of his house there with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.B./S.P.E., namely, Sri S. Mazumdar. The plaintiff duly complied with the order. Thereafter on or about 7 Aug. 1967, the plaintiff was asked by the plant Civil Engineer to go to the Assistant Vigilance Officer's Office to see the said police officer, Sri S. Mazumdar with all papers and documents in connection with his income and expenditure. The plaintiff met the said officer at his office. The officer asked the plaintiff to accompany him to the Punjab National Bank and to show his locker. The plaintiff accordingly handed over the key of the locker to the said police officer who opened the locker and inspected the same. Thereafter the plaintiff was called at the C.B.I. 's Office at Calcutta, on 24 Jan. 1968, and he was asked to sign a typed statement of the assets, income and expenditure of the plaintiff which was prepared by the police officer. The plaintiff refused to sign the same and requested the officer to handover the said paper to him in order to enable him to inspect the same and to see if they represent a correct statement of the income and expenditure as well as as the assets of the petitioner. In the said statement the plaintiff found that a sum of Rs. 7,000 was shown as belonging to the plaintiff though the said sum belonged to his wife as she received the same prior to the plaintiff's joining the defendant-company. On 26 Jan. 1968, the said police officer Sri S. Mazumdar came to the quarters of the plaintiff whereon the plaintiff requested him to enquire from his wife if the said sum of Rs. 7,000 really belonged to his wife or not. Sri Mazumdar refused to make any necessary query from his wife in this respect. On 16 Oct. 1968, a charge sheet was served on the plaintiff by the Director-in-charge of the Durgapur Steel Plant alleging misconduct of the plaintiff and asking him to offer explanation regarding the alleged breach of rule 3 of the Hindustan Steel Limited Conduct Rules under Cl. (18) of rule 5 of the Hindustan Steel Limited Discipline and Appeal Rules and to submit to the Director-in-charge of the Steel Plant an explanation showing cause as to why the plaintiff should not be dismissed or otherwise be suitably punished for committing the alleged acts of misconduct. The plaintiff duly replied to the said charge sheet denying the allegations that he was in possession of assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of about Rs. 15,428-63. He further submitted that the chargesheet was vague and indefinite within the meaning of rules 3 of the Conduct Rules and the same was not based on clear and definite allegations as required under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. It was also submitted therein that the statement of allegations accompanying the chargesheet was devoid of any particulars and the alleged excess amount was imaginary and without any basis. It was also stated therein that the said police officer Sri Mazumdar never asked him any question regarding the aforesaid amount and the estimate of Rs. 15,428-63 being the plaintiff's excess assets was without any foundation whatsoever. The explanation was submitted on 23 Oct. 1968. Thereafter on 11/12 Nov. 1969, the Director-in-charge informed the plaintiff by his letter that a Board of Enquiry had been formed with Sri N. Srivastava as Chairman and Sri S. Ekambaran as a member of the said committee and he was asked to appear before the enquiry committee on a certain date. Subsequently, however, the plaintiff was informed that the said committee was reconstituted by replacing Sri A.K. Das Gupta as a member in place of Sri S. Ekambaran and the date of enquiry was postponed till 2 Jan. 1969. The plaintiff submitted before the enquiry committee that the alleged chargesheet against the plaintiff was made under the direction and at the instance of the members of the said enquiry committee and as such the members of the committee were perverse, biased and they had already formed an adverse opinion against the plaintiff. It was further submitted that the said members treated the plaintiff as a convicted accused and the enquiry was held in the presence of Sri P.C. Acharyya, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was functioning as a prosecuting officer and the plaintiff was not allowed to appear through a lawyer nor he was given any opportunity to place his case properly and thereby the entire proceeding was vitiated by illegality and material irregularities resulting in failure of justice. On 11 Sept. 1969, a notice was received by the plaintiff whereby be was illegally and wrongfully dismissed from his service wits effect from 15 Sept. 1969, i.e., the date of receipt of the said notice by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that along with the diuresis notice no copy of the enquiry report nor any copy of findings of the enquiry committee were sent to the plaintiff. It has also been submitted that the order of dismissal is void and inoperative as the plaintiff was not given any opportunity of hearing and after repeated requests the plaintiff was supplied with the enquiry report on 30 Sept. 1969, without giving any copy of depositions or any copy of documents or papers produced before the enquiry committee. The plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal on 14 Oct. 1969, before Sri K.T. Chandy, Chairman, Hindustan, Steel, Ltd., Ranchi. The said appeal was dismissed without hearing the plaintiff on 14 April 1970. It has been submitted that the Board of Enquiry wrongly held that the plaintiff's wife had Rs. 4,500 only and not Rs. 7,000. It has been further submitted that the premium of Rs. 2,500 for the plaintiff's insurance policy was financed by his father. But this submission of the plaintiff was not properly considered and accepted. It was also submitted that the plaintiff's household expenses as assessed was wrong. It has been further submitted that the finding that plaintiff's assets exceed to the tune of its. 7,500 to his known source of income is wrong and baseless and as such the order of dismissal is unlawful bad and inoperative and the plaintiff Should be declared to be continuing in his service.

(3.) A written statement has been filed in the said suit being Title Suit No. 40 of 1971, on behalf of the defendant-company. In Para. 7 of the said written statement, it has been submitted that in accordance with the defendant-company's Conduct Rules and Discipline and Appeal Rules which govern the terms and conditions of services of the employees under the company it required the plaintiff to submit the statements of the immovable property owned by its employees. It has been further submitted that the defendant-company directed the plaintiff to submit the statement of his assets in the prescribed form and to return the same to the Vigilance Officer as desired by the Investigating Officer of C.B.I. On receipt of the said statement from the plaintiff the same was forwarded to the Investigating Officer Sri S. Mazumdar D.G., Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./S.P.E. Division, Calcutta.