BIMALENDU CHANDA Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment daft april' 21, 1986 passed in C. O. No. 15908 (W) of 1985 by which the writ petition made by the appellant against his order of transfer and also initiation of a disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge sheet by the respondents Steel Authority of India Limited and its officers was dismissed by the learned Trial judge.

(2.) IT appears that the appellant was acting as a senior Assistant in the Experts Accounts Section, Branch Transport and Shipping office of the Steel Authority of India Limited at Calcutta. As a Senior assistant of the said department, the petitioner was entrusted the verify the work orders and the type of operations performed by the contractor while processing the bills for payment. On 21st November 1985, the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of the Steel Authority of India Limited directed for a transfer of the appellant to Branch transport of Shipping Office, Paradip far a period of two years with immediate effect. It was mentioned in the said order that the appellant would be entitled to transfer benefits and joining time as per rules and it was also noted that the said order of transfer was made with approval of the competent authority. On the very same day, a memorandum containing a charge-sheet and imputations relating to the said charge-sheet were also issued to the appellant. It appears from the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the article of charge framed against the appellant that the appellant while processing the bills for payment to M/s. Marine Corporation who was Wedging and Propping Contractor did not verify the original work orders with the yard copies which were vital documents for checking purpose before releasing payment and because of the intentional violation of the procedure for processing the bills of the said M/s. Marine corporation, the said M/s. Marine Corporation received over payment on account of some of the bills and by such lapses, the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed dishonesty, thereby violating Rule 3 of the Conduct rules and rules 5 (x) and 5 (xx)of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Company.

(3.) THE appellant's case is that in the month of March, 1984 the appellant detected certain discrepancies and irregularities in respect of two bills dated 12. 2. 84 and 27. 2. 84 of: M/s. Marine Corporation and he submitted the same before the Accountant for Verification. The appellant had also brought to the notice of the Accountant that certain additions, alterations and deletion were made in the concerned work order dated 31. 12. 83. it was further detected that the work order dated 21. 12. 83, was signed by two different Senior Executives, viz. Sri B. R. Saha and Sri S. K. Chakraborty. As the work order is usually signed by a single officer, suspicious arose in the mind of the appellant as to the genuineness of the signature and/or operation of the said work order dated 31. 12. 83. Other irregularities were also detected in some of the bills of the said M/s. Marine Corporation. Thereafter the aforesaid two bills dated 12th February, 1984 and 27th February, 1984 along with original work orders were placed before the Assistant manager, Finance and Deputy Manager, Finance for proper verification of the discrepancies detected by the appellant sometime in the month of March, 1984 through the accountant of the Company. The further case of the appellant is that at the instance of the appellant the Accountant sri S. P. Sarkar brought to the notice of higher authorities the aforesaid discrepancies and irregularities in respect of the said two bills. The Accountant was therefore directed: not to make payment whatsoever to M/s. Marine Corporation. Subsequently an investigation was made by Sri K. Vardhan, the Manager, Finance and after investigation was made an interim report was submitted by the said Manager, Finance on 28th June, 1984. The appellant contended in the writ petition that sri, Sujit Kumar Chakraborty, Senior Executive (Marketing) being respondent no. 12 in the writ petition was solely responsible for tampering the work orders and an excess payment to the tune of about Rs. 2 lakhs was made to M/s. Marine Corporation during 1983-84. The appellant further contended that because of the detection of the said irregularities for which the said over payment by tampering the bill of M/s. Marine Corporation was unearthed, the appellant became an eye sore to the officers concerned, particularly to Sri Sujit Kumar Chakraborty, senior Executive (Marketing) and Sri Asoke Kumar, Chief. Eastern region, Transport and Shipping, Viz. , Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition and they became vindicative towards the appellant and they had been trying to do harm to the appellant. The matter with regard to manipulation and hampering of the records in respect of wedging, and propping operation in Branch Transport and Shipping Office stock-yeard was referred to the Vigilance by the respondent No. 6, Asoke Kumar, who according to the appellant, was in league with Sri S. K. Chakraborty. The appellant contended that because of the said malice against the appellant contended that because of the said malice against the appellant, the order of transfer dated 21st November, 198. 5 was issued but the said order was not served on the appellant. It may, however, be noted that the appellant has annexed a copy of the transfer order in the writ petition. The appellant has contended that the order of transfer is the manifestation of bias. Vindictiveness and malafide attitude of the respondents at the instance of respondents Nos. 6 and 12. The appellant also received a charge-sheet on 25th November, 1985 containing the imputations of misconduct constituting the said charge-sheet. The appellant thereafter moved the writ petition before the trial court challenging the said order of transfer and also initiation of disciplinary proceeding by issuing a charge-sheet against the appellants. The appellant contended in the writ petition that the appellant processed the bill as the same was signed and certified by the respondent No. 12, Sujit kumar Chakraborty, the Senior Executive (Marketing) and the appellant duly discharged his duties and functions as were required to be performed by him and lor the manipulations made by others, the appellant could not be held responsible. The appellant contended that the order of transfer was a glaring instance of malafide and colourable exercise of power and the same was issued as a measure of punishment and not for administrative reason. The appellant also contended that the charge-sheet contained allegations against the appellant without analysing and considering the duties of the appellant. It may be noted in this connection that in the grounds set forth in the writ petition the appellant has not challenged the charge-sheet as invalid on the score of bias and closed mind of the disciplinary authority which can be demonstrated from the charge-sheet itself. The appellant has, however, contended that the charge-sheet is otherwise invalid and malafide and the same does not disclose any specific act of misconduct and the specific duties of the appellants as Senior assistant.