STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Vs. NITISH CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a Judgment dated 4. 7. 2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W. P. No. 7353 (W)of 1999 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to set aside the Order of removal dated 20. 5. 1998 as well as the Order of the Appellate Authority dated 15/19. 2. 1999 and was further pleased to substitute the order of punishment of removal by a minor penalty of censure. While allowing the Writ Petition, the learned Judge also directed reinstatememt of the petitioner with further directions that the management/respondent/ appellant herein shall extend all service benefits to the Petitioner including backwages within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the Order.

(2.) THE short facts which could be gathered from a perusal of the Writ petition which was registered as W. P. No. 7353 (W) of 1999 are that on 23. 8. 1997 the Petitioner was placed under suspension for certain allegations amounting to serious misconduct under the Certified standing Orders of the Company and on 25. 8. 1997 the Deputy General manager, (CO and CCO) Steel Authority of India Ltd. , Durgapur Steel Plant issued the Charge-sheet. From the Statement of Allegations contained therein, the charge levelled against the Petitioner was that on 22. 8. 1997, the Petitioner was apprehended by the CISF Personnel trying to leave the Works premises through Plant Gate No. 9 with 9 (Nine) litres of Gear oil amounting to Rs. 500/- (Approximately) which was concealed in a chamber within the petrol tank of his Motorcycle No. WNP- 4293. Consequently, such act, according to the Statement of Allegations, constituted a misconduct under Clause 28 (vi) and 28 (ii) of the Certified standing Orders of the Company. The statement of allegations contained in the Charge-sheet reads as follows:

(3.) THE Certified Standing Orders which the learned counsel for the appellant has produced shows that actually Clause 28 relates to "conduct" and it is Clause 29 that deals with "acts of Misconduct" in which Clauses (ii) and (vi) referred to as Clause 28 (ii) and 28 (vi) in the Order of suspension as well as in the Statement of Allegations have been mentioned. We therefore proceed on the assumption that Clause 28 mentioned in the Charge-sheet actually refers to Clause 29. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, the relevant portions of both Clauses 28 and clause 29 (ii) and 29 (vi) as they appear in the Certified Standing Orders which was produced by Mr. Narayan Chandra Bhattacharjee, appearing for the Appellants, are reproduced below: