SUBASH CHANDRA MALLICK AND ORS. Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, A&N FOREST & PLANTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eight writ petitioners were working as mazdoors of the respondents No.4, Andaman and Nicobar Forest Plantation and Development Corporation Limited, hereinafter called as the corporation, at Hut Bay, Little Andaman. In this writ petition the petitioners have challenged eight separate decision of the respondent No.1 (Chairman of the corporation) dated March 18, 2014 affirming the decisions of the respondents No.2, Managing Director of the corporation for the removal of each of them from the service of the corporation with effect from June 4, 2010. Although the subject matters of challenge in this writ petition are the orders dated March 18, 2014 passed by the respondent No.1 Chairman affirming the decision of respondent No. 2 Managing Director removing the petitioners from their service from June 04, 2010, but the origin of the disputes involved in this writ petition date back in October, 1994 when the petitioners were placed under suspension from service.

(2.) The petitioners were serving as the workmen engaged in harvesting palm clearance in the Research and Development wing of the corporation at Hut Bay, Little Andaman. With effect from October 10, 1994 all the petitioners were placed under suspension on the common ground of misconduct and misbehaviour at the working place. On December, 28, 1994 three common charges were framed by the corporation against each of the petitioners, (i) for not giving daily out-turn fixed by the authorities, (ii) apart from themselves giving less daily out-turn, they instigated other workmen engaged in harvesting palm clearance also to slow-down the work to give less daily out-turn and, (iii) after giving less daily out-turn they loitered/kept idling while on duty. By separate memorandum all dated December 28, 1994 issued to each of them, the petitioners were informed about the above three charges framed against each of them and that separate enquiries will be held against each of them in respect of the charges framed against them. The list of documents and the list of witnesses to be produced in support of the said charges were also forwarded to each of the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to submit their individual written statement of the defence before the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) A common Enquiry Officer was appointed by the corporation to conduct separate enquiry proceeding in respect of the charges framed against each of the petitioners. In this writ petition the petitioners have disclosed one set of the enquiry report in respect of the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner No.8, Shri V. Muruganandan. Both Mr. Roshan George and Ms. Tasneem learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents respectively, submitted that since the report of the Enquiry Officer and the subsequent decisions of the disciplinary authority are identical in respect of the each of the petitioners, in order to avoid voluminous records, the petitioners have disclosed only one set of the enquiry report, and one decision of the disciplinary authority against one of the petitioners. They further submitted that even correspondence exchanged between the petitioners on one hand and the concerned respondents on the other hand in this case are also identical and same and as such one set of correspondence exchanged between one of the petitioners and the concerned respondents have been disclosed in this writ petition and the same are sufficient for deciding the case of all the petitioners in this writ petition. None of the petitioners attended the enquiry proceeding nor did they adduce any evidence to defend themselves. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry proceedings ex parte against each of the petitioners. In the enquiry proceeding, the presenting officer adduced evidence through witnesses and documents. The Enquiry Officer filed separate enquiry reports together with all the records of the enquiry proceeding to the disciplinary authority. In each of the enquiry report, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was that on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence adduced in the case before him by the Presenting Officer, and the reasons recorded by him, all the three articles of charges brought against each petitioner have been proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the reports of the Enquiry Officer and directed removal of each of the petitioners-workmen from service. Alongwith the orders of removal the copy of the relevant enquiry report was also enclosed to each of the petitioners.