High Court · 2009

I have heard Mr. H Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner an n). 02. d Mr. BD Das, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. 03. Shortly put, the petitioner’s pleaded case is that, while he had been serving as Deputy Accounts Officer of the Respondent Company and posted at Basistha Electrical Sub-Division, Guwahati, a complaint signed by 26 employees of that establishment was submitted to the Chairman, ASEB, whereupon a Committee was constituted on 05.10.2007 to conduct a preliminary investigation into the s ame. On the completion of the exercise, a report was submitted by the Committee on 22.05.2008. Following the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.06.2008. Though, he assailed the same before this Court with WP(C) No. 219 4/2008, the petition was disposed on 24.06.2008 negating the challenge. Instead , the respondent/company was directed to conclude the departmental proceeding co ntemplated within a period of four months of the initiation thereof. A notice t hereafter was issued on 09.07.2008 requiring the petitioner to submit a reply un der Regulation 10 of the ASEB, (General Service) Regulations (For officers), 196 0 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) against the following charges: - 1) Disorderly conduct in connection with his employment and acts subversive of discipline - under Regulation 19(1)(h). 2) 3) n 10(1)(n). Acts involving moral turpitude - under Regulation 10(1)(m) Breach of the ASEB officers’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1982 under Regulatio The said notice was accompanied by list of documents and also a statement of all egations in elaboration of the charges. The petitioner submitted his written ex planation on 05.08.2008 denying the imputation. Thereafter, an inquiry followed, in which the management examine 04. d 8 witnesses. The petitioner also examined one witness. The Inquiry Officer o n the completion of the proceedings submitted a report on 10.10.2008 concluding that all the charges have been proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority having accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer, vide office order dated 14.10.2008, proposed to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on h im and thereby accorded an opportunity to him to furnish a reply thereto. A cop y of the Inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner to facilitate his reply. Eventually, by the order dated 31.10.2008 the Managing Director, LADECL/the di sciplinary authority affirmed the penalty of dismissal. Being aggrieved, the pe titioner preferred a departmental appeal against the Board of Directors of LAEDC L, which on a consideration thereof, reduced the penalty from one of dismissal t o compulsory retirement. However, while appeal was thus pending, the petitione r approached this Court. 05. The respondent/company in its affidavit in substance has asserte d that the allegations contained in the complaint submitted by the 26 signatorie s, all employees of the same establishment in which the petitioner was posted, b eing serious in nature, a preliminary investigation was conducted into the same and having regard to the disclosures therein, the disciplinary proceeding on the charges as enumerated in the memorandum of charges dated 09.07.2008 was initiat ed. According to the respondent/company, the explanation submitted by the petit ioner was found to be wholly unsatisfactory and as such the proceedings was purs ued. The Inquiry Officer found all the charges proved against him and on an over all evaluation to the facts and circumstances of the case, the disciplinary auth ority having concurred therewith, the order of penalty was passed. The answerin g respondents have insisted that while conducting the disciplinary proceeding al l procedural safeguards had been extended to the petitioner and that the exercis e was wholly fair and just. According to them, the departmental appellate autho rity had on a compassionate consideration of the attending facts and circumstanc es, reduced the penalty of dismissal from service to one of compulsory retiremen t and that having regard to the gravity of the charges proved against the petiti oner, no interference with the penalty finally imposed on him is called for. In his affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has principally reiterated his avermen ts in the writ petition. 06. Mr. Chanda has strenuously urged that the impugned decision is v itiated in law as the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which form the purported basis thereof, are clearly perverse being not inconformity with the records. He has pointed out that though the management had listed 28 witnesses to support o f the charges, it did not examine all of them. He also complained of denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, more particu larly the Respondent No.2, the lady, who had alleged sexual harassment at work p lace by the petitioner. While denying the correctness of all the charges, the l earned counsel has urged that the same having been proved on the basis of legall y in admissible evidence, the impugned decision is per se illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and is liable to be adjudged as such.

07. Mr. Das, in reply, has argued that it being apparent on a plain reading of the report of the Inquiry Officer that his findings are based on a de tailed analysis of the evidence adduced, the impugned decision passed therein ca nnot be fault with. The charges brought and proved against the petitioner being very serious bearing on the probity and discipline of the office, the penalty n ow imposed on the petitioner is not, in any way, disproportionate to the charges and therefore no interference is warranted herewith. Before setting out on the adjudicative pursuit, it is apt to rec 08. all the constricted scope of scrutiny and interference with a disciplinary proce eding and a decision based thereon in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of t his Court. It thereby, does not acquire the prerogative to act as a Court of ap peal, taking upon itself the task of reevaluating the materials collected in cou rse of the departmental proceeding. It is only, if either the proceeding is viti ated by any contravention of law or procedural irregularity amounting to denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to the charged officer or perversity in the findings of the fact, as a consequence of non-consideration of relevant factors and consideration of irrelevant matters that this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review cannot interfere. The challenge of the petitioner as re gistered in the instant petition has thus to be tested on the above touchstone. 09. Noticeably, the petitioner does not complain of any procedural l apse except that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine th e witnesses of the disciplinary authority, in particular, Smt. Moni Das Mahanta. The Inquiry Officer’s report reading between the lines however belies the said grievance. It is apparent therefrom that the petitioner without any demur had cross-examined the management’s witnesses in details. This plea, therefore, doe s not commend for acceptance. 10. The Inquiry Officer has dealt with the statements of all the wit nesses examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority on all relevant aspects. The evidence of the witness of the petitioner has also been thoroughly discusse d. The Inquiry Officer’s report discloses that the written complaint against th e petitioner signed by 26 employees of the establishment and the report of the C ommittee that had conducted the preliminary investigation had been proved. The victim lady in her statement amongst others has referred to a strained relations hip between the charged officer and Sri Anjan Chutia, Junior Engineer with whom the former had alleged her illicit alliance. She also referred to extra zealous and enthusiastic conduct of the petitioner in circulating the news item carrying the said imputation against her. She in particular accused the petitioner of c ontinuously making indecent approaches towards her in past only to be rebuffed b y her. She was examined as management witness No.2. Whereas, the management wi tness no.1 Smt. Lakhimi Bhagawati and management witness no.3 Smt. Utpala Sarma did confine their statements to the preliminary investigation, the other witness es namely management witness no. 4,5,6,7 and 8 inter alia disclosed their experi ence to have noticed, the management witness No.2 Smt. Moni Das Mahanta emotiona lly disturbed and weeping in the office on being repeatedly confronted with the allegation of her immoral relationship with Sri Anjan Chutia by the petitioner. They also referred to the eccentric conduct and behaviour of the petitioner tow ards other employees as well which used to generate unpleasant environment in th e office. The Inquiry Officer, however, recorded that the petitioner had issued a clarification in the newspaper to the effect that he had no hand in the publi cation of the news item. A photocopy of the clarification available on record, however demonstrates the petitioner’s reiteration of the complaint dated 11.06. 2007 submitted by him amongst others before the Chairman of the Assam State Elec tricity Board leveling the imputation of an immoral liaison between Sri Anjan Ch utia and Smt. Moni Das Mahanta with particular reference to an incident on 29.05 .2007at 7.30 PM in office. The witness examined by the petitioner noticeably di d not depose on the correctness or otherwise of the charges brought against him and therefore his testimony is not of much relevance. 11. Of utmost significance is, however, the charge levelled by the l ady against the petitioner of his amorous advances towards her with the sexual o vertones in her work place. Even assuming that it was not the handiwork of the petitioner in getting the news item published, considering the other evidence on record, it is not possible to hold that there is no matrial whatsoever in suppo rt of the charges brought against him. The petitioner though had brought a very squalid allegation against Ms. Moni Das Mahanta having the potential of marring her reputation and esteem in the society, there is no iota of evidence in suppo rt thereof. On the other hand, lady has categorically alleged objectionable and lewd advances, which stood unimpeached in her cross-examination by him. Having regard to the limited scope of interference by a writ Cou 12. rt as indicated hereinabove, as well as the materials available on record, this Court therefore, does not feel persuaded to interfere either with the disciplina ry proceeding or the penalty imposed. In the above view of the matter, the petition lacks in merit and is therefore di smissed. No costs.