RAJU DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fair play in action is the thematic content of this proceeding which has arisen in the following setting:

(2.) The petitioner was employed under the Respondent No. 2, the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited(here in after referred to as Corporation) the Respondent Nos. 2,4,5,6 and 7 are the Director (Technical), the Regional Director, General Manager Chief Engineer (Drill) and Cheif Manager (P & A) respectively. While the Petitioner was working as an Asstt. Technician (Electrical) in the Dhansiri Valley Project (herein after referred to as DVP) he was placed under suspension under Regulation 36 of the ONGC (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 (herein after referred to as Regulations) vide order dated 24.1.91. The respondents decided to hold an enquiry and accordingly the petitioner was served with the article of charges along with statements of imputation of misconduct etc on 26.4.91 .The articles of charges re-hearshed below:

(3.) The petitioner answered to the charges by filing a statement of defence in writing denying the allegation those were made in the charge-sheet and the imputation. The Respondents decided to proceed with the enquiry and appointed one Sri Onkarmal, General Manager (P & A) ONGC vide office order dated 15.10.92 During the course of enquiry 4(four) witnesses were examined on behalf of the ONGC. Apart from a number of documents produced in the inquiry in support of the case of the management. The enquiry officer after considering the evidence on record held that the charge of mis-conduct levelled against the petitioner was established on all counts. In his report the enquiry officer criticised the conduct of Sri N Ahmed, S.C. Tyagi and Shri Arora the witnesses for the management and also found fault in the department not seizing some of the vital documents. The enquiry officer also disapproved the delay on the part of the department in conducting the investigation. The said report of the enquiry officer was submitted before the disciplinary authority on 1.10.93 and the disciplinary authority thereafter vide its order dated 18.2.94 communicated the petitioner its acceptance of the enquiry report and found the Petitioner guilty of all the charges. The disciplinary authority by its aforesaid order imposed upon the petitioner penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, with effect from 1.1.95 to 1998. The suspension order dated 24.1.91 was also revoked and the period of suspension was ordered to be non duty for all intents and purposes. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority alleging the breach of the statutory rules as well as the principles of natural justice. The petitioner specifically alleged as to the non-furnishing of some of the materials documents amounted to the denial of the fair opportunity to defend his case effectively. Petitioner further pointed out about non-furnishing of the report of the enquiry authority. By its order dated 2.6.94 the Appeallate authority dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal the appellate authority reduced the penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary authority to stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The Petitioner thereafter moved the Corporation demanding justice by way of a further Appeal which was turned down by the Respondents vide communication dated 27.3.95. Hence the writ petition.