DIPAK CHANDRA CHOUDHURI, SON OF LATE N.C. CHOUDHURI, RESIDENT OF SECTOR Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, ISPAT BHAWAN LODHI NAGAR, P.O., P.S. & DISTRICT NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the order dated 23.06.2009 (Annexure-7) issued by the disciplinary authority pertaining to removal of petitioner from the services of the company and for quashing the order dated 04.09.2009 (Annexure-10) issued by Chairman (appellate authority) in terms of which the respondent on upholding the findings of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority has modified the order of punishment to reduction to a lower grade of E-6 and to the lowest pay scale in the reduced grade and for direction to respondents to restore the petitioner to his original grade & Pay Scale (i.e. E-7 in the basic scale of Rs. 25350.00) with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner was posted as DGM (RMP). In pursuance to office order dated 29.10.2007, all his actions were subject to the approval of the GM (Ref.). The main duty assigned to the petitioner was to coordinate with other concerned DGMs and AGMs, develop a plan and execute the same on approval by the concerned GM. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide office dated 07.04.2009 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. In the said office order vide Annexure-2, the statement of implication of misconduct has been alleged against the petitioner for contravening Rule 4.0 (1) (ii), 4.0(2) and 5.0(9) of SAIL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. In pursuance to article of charges and implication of misconduct, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. In the reply, it has been asserted by the petitioner that on account of inferior refractory bricks, the kiln were not functioning properly, for which he took proper measures planning and managing to over come the defects but in spite of his best judgment, not much could be done to minimize the loss. The petitioner also denied the allegations of lack of devotion to duty and integrity. The aforesaid reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory hence an inquiry committee was constituted and the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry committee. The petitioner was provided with a questionnaire and was asked to reply to the queries. The petitioner gave answer to the said queries. During inquiry the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses. The inquiry committee submitted its report but the same was not provided to the petitioner to enable him to file his defence against the findings of the inquiry committee. On 23.06.2009, the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-7 to the writ application imposed a punishment of removal from services of the company, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. On receipt of the order of disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority vide Annexure-10 to the writ application. The appellate authority modified the order of the disciplinary authority and imposed a punishment of reduction to E-6 grade and to the lowest pay scale in the aforesaid grade. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authority, the petitioner, left with no other alternative efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the article of charges and statement of implication of misconduct against the petitioner does not constitute a misconduct under the SAIL, Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the departmental enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner in violation of the aforesaid provisions and there has been contravention of principles of natural justice and fair play and the impugned order inflicting major punishment has been passed in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order of punishment by the disciplinary as well as appellate authority dated 23.06.2009 and 04.09.2009 have been passed without second show cause notice. Learned senior counsel during course of hearing has referred to the decisions of Honourable Apex Court as reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand at paragraph nos. 22 and 23, which is quoted herein below -