BRAJA BANDHU BEHERA Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Manager (Sales) under IDCOL Cement (ICL in short) a fully owned subsidiary of opposite party no.2, Industrial Development Corporation of Odisha Ltd. (hereinafter referred to "IDCOL")-opposite party no.1 has filed this application challenging the order of punishment of dismissal from service dated 29.4.2003 vide Annexure-36 published in a newspaper and further prays for quashing of the proceeding pending before the Enquiry Officer dated 11.02.2003 including Annexure-34 and grant of all consequential service benefits as due admissible to him in accordance with law.

(2.) The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner while working as Zonal Manager of Balasore and Bhubaneswar of the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited and looking after the management of the corporation, was posted and transferred as the Manager (Sales) IDCOL Cement Ltd., Bargarh. Pending drawal of the disciplinary proceeding, he was placed under suspension on 11.10.2002 vide Annexure-1 fixing headquarter at Bargarh. Thereafter he was served with the charge on 16.10.2002 alleging misconduct under Clause-4 of the Conduct Rules of the Organization containing the following charges:

(3.) The petitioner was called upon to give his explanation to the said charges within a period of 15 days of receipt of the said letter. The petitioner submitted his preliminary explanation on 25.10.2002 and also sought for supply of documents as per the list for submission of detail show cause and also requested vide letter dated 18.10.2002 to fix up his headquarter at Bhubaneswar instead of Bargarh. Without supplying the documents, he was directed to seek the records from the concerned authority. Therefore, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.11.2002 in absence of documents sought for by him against the charge denying the allegations. On 6.12.2002 vide Annexure-8 the Corporation decided to hold a domestic inquiry and appointed Sri R.N. Debata, Advocate as Inquiry Officer and Sri P.K. Das, Manager (P&A) IDCOL as Presenting Officer. The inquiry officer conducted the inquiry fixing the date of inquiry to 26.12.2002 at the Transit House of H.I.W. Ltd., Hirakud, which is at a distance of 60 k.m. from Bargarh i.e. the Headquarter of the petitioner. Though there was a direction for payment of subsistence allowance but the authority did not pay the same and no provision was made to pay the T.A. and D.A. for attending the inquiry. The inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry knowing fully well that the documents asked for by the petitioner had not been supplied to him. On 11.1.2003, due to illness of the petitioner's wife, he made a representation before the authorities requesting for headquarters leaving permission and intimate the same to the inquiry officer. But the authorities did not consider the same. Though on 11.2.2003 the petitioner made a representation to the Presenting Officer with a list of witnesses and prayed to make available those officials for examination as defence witnesses, but the same has not been taken into consideration by the authorities. Therefore, he made another representation on 13.02.2003 requesting the inquiry officer to give him reasonable time, at least 15 days, to submit his written explanation in his defence. On 13.02.2003, he also filed another representation for sanction of subsistence allowance and change of headquarters. When that representation was pending, the petitioner suddenly fell ill suffering from Hypertension, Coronary and Artery disease and remained under treatment at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. Therefore, he could not move from Bhubaneswar to Hirakud either by road or by Train as he had been advised by the Doctor to take complete rest. In spite of the illness of the petitioner and advise of doctor for one month complete rest, the inquiry officer adjourned the enquiry from 18.02.2003 to 23.02.2003 and subsequently to 1.3.2003 and lastly to 8.3.2003 holding that the inquiry is closed directing the petitioner to remain present on 8.3.2003. On 5.3.2003, the petitioner submitted another representation before the inquiry officer for review of the order dated 1.3.2003 and for adjournment of the inquiry fixed on 8.3.2003 and further prayed for supply of relevant documents but without affording opportunity and supplying the documents, the inquiry officer concluded the proceeding without following the principles of natural justice. After rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner on 5.3.2003, the inquiry officer prepared a questionnaire under Rule 6 (16) containing 37 questions on the basis of materials available to be answered by the petitioner and posted the inquiry to 11.3.2003 at 3.00 P.M. at the same venue. The petitioner could not appear on 11.3.2003, therefore the inquiry officer directed both the P.O. and the petitioner to submit their written argument under Rule 6(17) on 14.3.2003. On 12.3.2003, since the petitioner was not cured from his ailments, he requested the inquiry officer for adjournment of the case but the inquiry officer on 14.3.2003 closed the inquiry and reserved the report. On 31.3.2003 a notice was published but the same has not been responded by the petitioner. Therefore, by publishing the notice in daily "Sambad" on 5.4.2003 punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner assailing such order of punishment imposed against him on the ground of noncompliance of the principles of natural justice, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.