MADHUSUDAN TIWARY Vs. PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By the original order of punishment, which has been confirmed in appeal, the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of deduction to the lower post and consequently to recover an amount of Rs. 1,21,083/- drawn by him towards medical reimbursement during the last two years.

(3.) The petitioner is said to have joined in the respondent-Company as Labour on 20.07.1977 and got promoted to the Record Keeper Grade-II. He was, however, placed under suspension vide order dated 24.06.2002 and thereafter charges were framed on 29.06.2002 inter alia alleging that for reimbursement of medical expenses for himself and for his family members he adopted malpractices on false and fictitious declaration/statements regularly. He has claimed medical bills reimbursement prescription, which was neither prescribed by the Doctor nor signed by any Doctor. It was also alleged that Medical Superintendent asked him to go to Christan Medical College & Hospital (in short CMCH), Vellore, which is approved hospital by the company, but he got the matter referred to Patna Medical College & Hospital (in short PMCH), Patna only with mala fide intention. His explanation furnished on 04.07.2002 was found to be unsatisfactory and the charges were enquired through the Enquiry Officer appointed by the management. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty for the alleged charges. Thereafter on 23.01.2003, Annexure-12, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has been imposed with the impugned punishment. Incidentally the petitioner chose to challenge the original order of punishment in W.P. (S) No. 1946 of 2003, which, however, was disposed of as the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a period of two months. The said order was passed on 23.08.2003, Annexure-19. In the meantime, the respondent-Company floated the scheme for voluntary separation, which was also challenged by several employees including the present petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 3233 of 2003. The said writ petition was referred to the learned Division Bench, which was finally dismissed vide judgment dated 25.02.2004 Annexure-R/I to the counter affidavit of the respondents rejecting the contention of the petitioners including the present petitioner that the scheme was vitiated by mala fides. It was also noticed that the company is under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short BIFR) and the scheme has been offered to those, who have been identified as surplus. The learned Division Bench also found on the pleading on record that the writ petition was filed by two Unions and four individuals and further one of the writ petition was filed by 27 employees. However, the Division Bench observed that whether these are part of the staff found as surplus by the appropriate committee, is not revealed. It, therefore, observed that if the petitioners had any grievance in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, they could move before the Authority under the Act. It was also observed that if they have got any grievance, which they are legally entitled to put forward before the BIFR, they can do that as well. The writ petition was, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner admittedly applied for Voluntary Separation Scheme (in short VSS) in the meantime and was accepted on 01.09.2003 as is evident from Annexure-R/2 of the counter affidavit. Incidentally, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition as the Appellate Authority had not disposed of the appeal. Though, the appeal was disposed of in the mean time, but the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said Contempt Petition, gave a direction upon the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order taking into consideration the Memorandum of Appeal and supplementary appeal preferred by the petitioner as the Court was not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22.04.2004 as it was not in conformity with the observations and directions of this Court and law. The said order was passed on 19.08.2004 in the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 96 of 2004 whereafter, the impugned appellate order, Annexure-21, has been passed by the Appellate Authority on 05.10.2004 upholding the original punishment.