SK.ZIAUL HAQUE Vs. CHAIRMAN, IDCOL CEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (for short "IDCOL") was established under the Industries Department of Government of Orissa and Hira Cement was one of its Unit. After rigorous recruitment test, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Post Graduate Apprentice on 08.03.1968 and was posted at Hira Cement Ltd. In course of time he was allowed to continue as an Assistant and then on 15.9.1979 was promoted to the post of Assistant Sales Officer. Being satisfied with his performance the Management in July, 1989 promoted him to the post of Deputy Manager.

(2.) WHILE matter stood thus, on 31.3.1993 the Hira Cement Works which was a Unit of IDCOL was transferred to the control of IDCOL Cement Ltd., commonly known as "ICL", by means of an agreement entered into inter se between IDCOL and ICL. Clause -2 of the said agreement deals with transfer of all personnel of Hira Cement Works to ICL. Clause -22 of the agreement specifies that the ICL agreed to employ all the workmen, staff and other personnel, who were on the regular rools of Hira Cement Works as on 31.3.1993 subject to certain -terms.

(3.) WHILE matter stood thus, unfortunately, it is stated, the petitioner received a telegram with regard to his wifes illness and was constrained to apply for leave and went to attend his wife. Thereafter, he extended the leave till 02.1.1997. Though the petitioner prayed to supply him documents and grant him some more time to submit his explanation he was intimated by letter dtd. 10.4.1997 (Annexure -6) that an Enquiry Officer and Presiding Officer have been appointed. He was called upon to be present and participate in the enquiry from the date and time to be fixed by the Enquiring Officer. By letter dtd. 11.4.1997, the Enquiring Officer intimated the petitioner to appear on 24.4.1997 in the Office of the Deputy General Manger and take part in the enquiry. After receiving the said letter the petitioner intimated the Enquiring Officer that, the allegations and imputations levelled against him being not specific, the documents relying upon which such charges were framed, be supplied, so as to enable him to effectually defend himself. Unfortunately, the authorities did not pay any heed to such request, nor they paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such action, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No.7057/1997. The said Writ application was disposed of on 3.7.1997 directing the concerned authorities to dispose of the representation in which the petitioner had requested to supply documents before proceeding any further. This Court also directed the opposite parties to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with law. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court once again, being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in complying with the direction issued by order dated 9.9.1997. This Court, after hearing learned counsel, directed that the subsistence allowance should be paid to the petitioner as per Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join and resume his duties w.e.f. 08.6.1998. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges on 31.8.1998, inter alia, stating that all the charges were false and that he was not involved in commission of the alleged irregularities and prayed to drop the charges. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and he was intimated that a departmental proceeding would be initiated to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiring Officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report, copy of which was forwarded to the petitioner on 15.2.2000, vide Annexure -11, and he was asked to submit his second show cause as to why he shall not be imposed the major punishment of dismissal. After receipt of the second show cause notice on 29.3.2000 the petitioner submitted his show cause assailing the findings of the Enquiring Officer mainly on the ground that the same were contrary to the evidence and that the proposed punishment was not commensurate to the gravity of the charges. Without taking into account the representation, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Executive Director by his order dtd.27.4.2000 imposed the punishment of dismissal, vide Annexure -13.