High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3937/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. S arma, learned Senior counsel and Standing Counsel, OIL assisted by Mr. A. Jahid,
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 4.2.2008 passed by the Ce ntral Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Guwahati in Ref. Case N o. 11/2005. By the said reference, the following issue has been answered in favo ur of the management of OIL, Duliajan. (cid:28)Whether the industrial dispute raised by Sh. Ruchi Nath Baruah, an ex-employee of Oil India Ltd. over his dismissal from service, justified? If not, what relie f the concerned workman is entitled to? (cid:29) The petitioner was taken up for a departmental proceeding on the basis of the fo llowing charges :- (cid:28)It has been reported against you as under: 1.0(a) In the year 1991, OIL acquired an ear of land measuring 31B-3K-11L for t he Location - MTC near Margherita and an amount of Rs. 7,47,734/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Forty Seven thousand Seven hundred and thirty four only) was paid as Surfa ce Compensation to the concerned pattadars /occupiers. On scrutiny of the releva nt documents in connection with payment of Surface Compensation in respect of lo cation-MTC, it was found that the following 9(nine) fictitious enumeration lists were prepared by you as detailed below : Dag No Amount of Surface Compensation p 59 34 34 Name of the Pattadars / Occupiers aid 1. Sri Robin Sonowal 2. Sri Durllav Gohain 3. Sri Gojen Sonowal 4. Sri Mohendra Sonowal 27/34 24/27 5. Sri Madan Gohain 43/44 6. Sri Chitra Gohain 60/124 7. Sri Bholok Gohain 8. Sri Padmeswar Gohain 27/28 9. Sri Nanda Sonowal 59/60 Total Rs. 4,26,973.25 Rs. 45,031.60 Rs. 47,235.75 Rs. 48,652.00 Rs. 42,526.30 Rs. 49,189.60 Rs. 49,154.00 Rs. 49,845.00 Rs. 47,115.00 Rs. 48,220.90 1.0(b) The concerned Gaon Bura who identified the Occupiers / Pattadars of the Loc.-MTC stated that he had neither put his LTI nor Seal on the above mentioned enumeration lists prepared by you. Further, he reiterated that the 9(Nine) perso ns as mentioned above do not hail from the village under his jurisdiction. 1.0(c) As the pattadars of Dag No. 59, 34, 27, 24 & 60 involved in the said Loc ation has confirmed that these 9(nine) persons were not occupiers over their lan d. Land under Dag No. 43, 28 & 214 were classed as (cid:28)Sarkari (cid:29) land. Concerned Lot Mandal after checking the records confirmed that these 9 persons do not appear in the Government Revenue records as Occupiers. You were directly associated with the preparation of enumeration lists a 1.0(d) nd payment of Surface Compensation for the Location-MTC. It is, therefore, alleg ed that you prerpared the fictitious enumeration lists against the persons menti oned above so as to defraud the Company’s money to the extent of Rs. 4,26,973.15 (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Six thousand Nine hundred Seventy three & Paise Fifte en only) and derived undue benefit. 2.0 The above mentioned act alleged to have been committed by you amounts to misconduct under section 21.1.2 of the Company’s Modified Standing Orders. You are hereby given an opportunity to submit your written explanation w 3.0 ithin 10(Ten) days from the date of receipt of this Notice as to why appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against you as per the aforesaid Sectio n of the Company’s Modified Standing Orders. 4.0 Should you fail to submit your explanation within the stipulated time li mit, it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer in your defence a nd the Company will take action on the matter. (cid:29) In the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner, it was a case o f total denial of the charge. Being not satisfied with the reply furnished by th e petitioner, an enquiry was ordered and pursuant to the enquiry conducted by th e Inquiry Officer, it was held that the charge levelled against the petitioner s tood established in the enquiry. It will be pertinent to mention here that the p etitioner did not participate in the enquiry although he was given several oppor tunities as would be evident from the enquiry report etc. Although the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet but he did not a ppear in the enquiry proceeding. As many as 12 opportunities were given to the p etitioner and on each occasion, although, the management witnesses were present but for ends of justice, the Inquiry Officer adjourned the proceedings enabling the petitioner to appear in the enquiry. However, inspite of getting the intimat ion and notice, he declined to appear in the enquiry proceeding, which naturally resulted in exparte proceeding with the findings that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Fairness in the enquiry proceeding is discernible in as much as the Inquiry Offi cer while proceeding exparte against the petitioner duly examined the witnesses adduced by the management and also took into consideration the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner. It was upon such consideration of the m atter, the Inquiry Officer held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. T hereafter, the management having dismissed the petitioner from service, he raise d an industrial dispute and the same was referred to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, for adjudication. The learned Tribunal by its impugned award dated 4.2.2008 taking note of all the materials on record has held that the enquiry proceeding was fair and there was no infirmity in the penalty of dismissal from service. The learned Tribunal has also dealt with the quantum of punishment and it has been held that having rega rd to the petitioner is involved in misappropriation of public money, the penalt y of dismissal was not disproportionate. Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was nothi ng to disbelieve that the documents produced showing the nine persons as the aff ected persons for acquisition of land. He submits that whatever the petitioner d id, he did so believing the Gaon Bura who had certified the said 9(nine) persons as the affected persons. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned counsel for OIL submits that the said plea of the petitioner is not sustainable in law, ina smuch as, evidences are overwhelming to show that the petitioner along with two others was responsible for furnishing fictitious names for the purpose of wrongf ul gain. The petitioner although was given opportunity to participate in the enquiry proc eeding he did not avail the said opportunity and there is no whisper in the writ petition as to why he did not avail the opportunity provided to him. The Inquir y Officer taking note of all the materials on record including the evidence addu ced by the management and written statement that was submitted by the petitioner came to the definite conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for misappr opriation of fictitious documents for wrongful gain. The aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer having been gone into in detail by the learned Tribunal in its detailed award, this Court exercising writ jurisdic tion cannot sit on appeal over such findings recorded by both the authorities. B e it stated here that this Court has already dismissed the writ petition filed b y one Shri Lolit Rajkonwar involved in WP(C) No. 6047/2004 today, who was also i nvolved in the said incident. It is submitted by Mr. Chutia that having regard to the long length of service o f the petitioner, the penalty of compulsory retirement would have met the ends o f justice. This Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over the penalty imposed so as to substitute another penalty.
Decision
In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to t he respondents to re-consider the matter regarding imposition of any other lesse r penalty and as to whether any other penalty like compulsory retirement would m eet the ends of justice. There shall be no order as to costs.