High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4588/2013 PRESENT HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Das , learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Assam Tea Corporation Limited. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respo ndents to allow her to inspect and take extracts from the original relevant docu ments and to afford her all reasonable opportunities in submitting a proper writ ten statement of defence in reply to the charge memo dated 04-11-2011. Further p rayer made is to quash the proposed enquiry proceedings against her. Petitioner is serving as Legal Officer of Assam Tea Corporation Limited (Corporation). She was served with a show-cause notice dated 04-11-2011 under the service regulations of the Corporation as to why any of the prescribed penalties should not be inflicted on her on the charges framed. Altogether, 6 ( six) charges have been framed against the petitioner. The charges relate to her alleged unsatisfactory performance in the discharge of her duty, disrespectful b ehaviour towards superiors, disregard to officials norms and procedure, insubord ination, indiscipline etc. She has, therefore, been charged with committing gros s misconduct etc.
Decision
It may be mentioned that pending drawal of departmental proceedi ng, petitioner was earlier placed under suspension vide order dated 21-10-2011. Petitioner had challenged her suspension order before this Court in WP(C) No.554 9/2011. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the above show-cause noti ce was issued. This Court passed an interim order on 23-12-2011 directing that n o action on the charge-sheet dated 04-11-2011 should be taken. Though applicatio n for vacating the stay order was filed by the Corporation, the writ petition it self was taken up for hearing and was disposed of by the judgment and order date d 06-08-2012. The Corporation was directed to afford all opportunities to the pe titioner to file the written statement of defence within a reasonable period and thereafter the disciplinary authority should consider the necessity of holding enquiry. In so far the suspension of the petitioner was concerned, the matter wa s left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority. It is seen that the petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP( C) No.3641/2013 wherein this Court passed an order on 28-06-2013 directing th at petitioner should be allowed to resume duties as Legal Officer of the Corpora tion. Now, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. On a query by the Court as to which documents the petitioner wan ts to inspect, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 2 of the written statement of defence dated 19-07-2013 filed by the petitioner (Anne xure-H to the writ petition). The said paragraph reads as under:- (cid:28)But surprisingly, no opportunity has been afforded to me to inspect and take ex tracts from the relevant original documents including the list of documents (enc losed as ANNEXURE-III to the Charge-Sheet) as well as other vital documents (i.e . Attendance Register for the entire Executive and Staff members maintained at J orhat Office and Cinnamara T.E. of ATCL during 2011; all the communications / do cuments regarding Case No. Misc./60/10- The Manager Cinnamara T.E. -Vs- Bhupen H azarika and others and regarding GMC 1/2010-11-Cinnamara T.E. -Vs- Jorhat Tea Co mpany; CM/ATC/JO/Legal/1/306-07 dated 29-01-2011; ATC/JO/Legal/01/ 30405 dated 2 9-07-2011; My medical bill dated 30-06-2011; My service file as well as the enti re communications exchanged in connection with my service as Legal Officer of AT CL; documents of Sri Nitya Nanda Deva Goswami who has been serving as the Manage r of Jorhat Office and Cinnamara T.E. reflecting his educational qualifications to take care of Court cases/legal proceedings in place of a regular Legal Office r; documents regarding Police/departmental cases against aforementioned Sri Nity a Nanda Deva Goswami and other ATCL officials concerned, etc. (cid:29) The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation in his reply to the petitioner dated 26-07-2013 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) s tated as follows:- (cid:28)In your letter, you have further alleged that no opportunity was afforded to yo u to inspect and extract from the relevant original documents including the list of documents (Annexure-III) to the charge sheet. You have further stated that s ince because no opportunity was afforded to you to inspect the documents you wer e not in a position to properly response to the charges with written statement o f defense. But we can not accept your allegation as in Para III of charge sheet communicated to you vide letter no. ATC/RLP/2009/16(A) dt. 04-11-2011 (copy of w hich was enclosed in our letter no. ATC/RLP/2009/48 dt. 09-07-2013) it is clearl y written that (cid:28)Smt. Ruplekha Lekharu Phukan is hereby informed that if she so d esires she may inspect and take extracts from the documents mentioned in the enc losed list of document (Annexure III) at any time during office hours within 5 d ays of receipt of this memorandum (cid:29). In spite that you did not seek any opportuni ty to inspect documents to response properly to charges with a written statement . (cid:29) A reading of the above gives the impression that the petitioner is being quite unreasonable in her approach. One gets the impression that the pe titioner wants to frustrate or delay the enquiry. No doubt petitioner has the ri ght to inspect the relevant documents or to take extracts therefrom but the same cannot be used as a tool to delay the proceedings. The disciplinary authority has already appointed an Enquiry Offi cer and as per petitioner’s statement in the writ petition, Presenting Officer h as also been appointed. It will be in the petitioner’s own interest to cooperate with the disciplinary proceeding. If the petitioner wants to inspect any docume nt or wants to take extract of any document which may have relevance to her defe nce, she may submit in writing to the Enquiry Officer for such inspection or to take such extract. However, it will be the discretion of the Enquiry Officer to allow such inspection or to take extract. If inspection or taking of extract in disallowed, the Enquiry Officer may briefly indicate the reasons therefor in the proceedings of enquiry to be maintained by him. is made out. Subject to the observations made above, no case for interference Writ petition is dismissed.