HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD Vs. R N BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th October 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 11th September, 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:

(2.) Thereafter on 17th July, 1967 a letter was received by the plaintiff being No. CME/C/7 (i) 1199 dated 15th 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 7th August, 1967 the plaintiff was asked by the plaint Civil Engineer to go to the Assistant Vigilance Officer's office to see the said Police Officer, Shri 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 24th January, 1968 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 the assets of the petitioner. In the said statement the plaintiff found that a sum of Rs. 7000/- was shown as belonging to the plaintiff though the said sum belonged to his wife as she received the same prior to the plaintiffs joining the defendant company. On 26th January, 1968 the said Police Officer Sri S. Mazumdar came to the quarter of the plaintiff whereon the plaintiff requested him to enquire from his wife if the said sum of Rs. 7000/- really belonged to his wife or not. Mr. Mazumdar refused to make any necessary query from his wife in this respect. On 16th October, 1968 a chargesheet 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 Hindusthan Steel Limited Conduct Rules under Clause (XVIII) of Rule 5 of the Hindusthan Steed Ltd. 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 P. He further submitted that the charge-sheet was vague and indefinite within the meaning of Rule 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 charge-sheet 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 Shri Mazumdar never asked him any question regarding the aforesaid amount and the estimate of Rs. 15,428.63 P. being the plaintiffs excess assets was without any foundation whatsoever. The explanation was submitted on 23rd October, 1968. Thereafter on 11/12th November, 1969, the Director-in-Charge informed the plaintiff by his letter that a Board of Enquiry had been formed with Shri 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 Shri A.K. Das Gupta as a member in place of Shri S. Ekambaran and the date of enquiry was postponed till the 2nd of January, 1969. The plaintiff submitted before the Enquiry Committee that the alleged charge-sheet 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 were held in the presence of Shri 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 11th September, 1969 a notice was received by the plaintiff whereby he was illegally and wrongfully dismissed from his service with effect from 15th September, 1969 i.e., the date of receipt of the said notice by the plaintiff. It has been submitted that along with the aforesaid 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 30th September, 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 14th October, 1969 before Shri K.T. Chandy, Chairman, Hindusthan Steel Limited, Ranchi. The said appeal was dismissed without hearing the plaintiff on 14th April, 1970. It has been submitted that the Board of Enquiry wrongly held that the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs household expenses as assessed was wrong. It has been further submitted that the finding that plaintiffs assets exceed to the tune of Rs. 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 Shri S. Mazumdar, D.G, Superintendent of Police C.B.I./S.P.E. Division, Calcutta.