When a statute lays down a particular manner for conducting disciplinary proceedings, then it has to be conducted in the prescribed manner and in no other manner.

Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 24th December 2019 

Manik Lal Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [G.A. No. 1260 of 2019 with W. P No. 77 of 2019]

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as the ‘Company’). The Petitioner was employed as a bus conductor in the said Company. While the Petitioner was on duty, the vehicle on which he was performing his duty was inspected by the checking squad. An excess amount of Rs. 398/- was found in the cash bag of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner failed to give proper account with regard to the excess money, he was suspended by an order of suspension. A charge sheet was issued against him and the Company initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the institution of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of penalty against him, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The Petitioner prayed for setting aside the suspension order and the charge sheet.

• Appellant’s contention

The Petitioner contended that the allegations levelled against him were false. Though he admitted to possess an excess amount of Rs 400/- with him, he reasoned that the money was for purchasing medicines.

The Petitioner alleged that the charge sheet served upon him was defective and vague. The charge sheet failed to disclose the service rules by which the Petitioner was guided. Hence, the disciplinary proceeding initiated on the basis of a defective charge sheet was farce. The charge sheet was not specific since it did not mention the Article of Charges and the names of the management witnesses were also not forwarded along with the charge sheet. The Petitioner relied upon the case of Chief Information Commissioner v. The State of Manipur (2012(1) CHN(SC) 61) where it was held that when a procedure is laid down statutorily and there is no challenge to the said statutory procedure the court should not, in the name of interpretation lay down a procedure which is contrary to the expressed statutory provision. Where statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. In the instant case, the respondents were bound to follow the Service Regulations of the Company by issuing a formal charge sheet stating the Articles of Charges and forwarding the list of documents relied upon by the Company. Instead the Company did not comply with the same.. Hence, the entire disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated in law.

The Petitioner relied upon the Rule 39 of the Calcutta State Transport Employees’ Service Regulation wherein it has been stated that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on an employee of the Corporation unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been offered an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charges which shall be communicated to the person charged together with the statement of allegations on which each charge is based. The Petioner made an averment that the Company stood merged with other transport undertakings of the State Government and has since been renamed West Bengal Transport Corporation. Hence, the Petitioner contended that since the identity of the Company where the Petitioner was employed had changed because of the merger, he was not aware of the service rules under which he was guided.

The Petitioner alleged violation of the principle of natural justice. He specifically stated that since the notices of hearing were not served to him, he was unable to attend on the said dates of hearing. The Petitioner had relied on the decision of Zahira Habibulla Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2006 SC 1967) where the court upheld that reasonable opportunity of hearing must be given to the accused. The Petitioner contended that he was denied the opportunity of hearing as he did not receive the copy of the hearing notices, due to which he was absent when the evidence and depositions of management witnesses were recorded. The inquiry officer had proceeded with recording the evidence of the management witnesses in his absence and the Petitioner never had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

The Petitioner also alleged to the highhanded activity of the inquiry officer by writing a letter to the Managing Director of the Company. The Petitioner also alleged that the inquiry officer acted in a biased manner by compelling him to sign on pre-written documents.

The Petitioner alleged that since there is absolutely no evidence against him, the inquiry officer must have acted in a prejudicial manner in passing the impugned order of punishment. He relied on the judgment of Narendra Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 2006 SC 1748) wherein the court held the  where the report of the inquiry officer is based on no evidence, the same came can be interfered with.

• Respondent’s Contention

The Respondents had opposed the prayer of the Petitioner.

It had been contended that the present writ petition was not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate forum. The impugned order being appealable, the writ petition ought not to be entertained by the Court.

The Respondents contended that Regulation 41 of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service Regulation is applicable to all employees of the Corporation and the Petitioner is liable to follow the same.

Further, the Petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing. Repeated notices have been served upon the Petitioner and he had accepted the same by putting his signature on the acknowledgment due card.

It has been argued that it was a clear case of admission of guilt. The Petitioner himself had accepted the charge against him in his explanation to the charge sheet but has given an excuse to escape from his liability. The Respondents have relied on the case of Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution –vs- Educational Appellate Tribunal and Anr. (19997 SCC 332) where the court held that no enquiry is necessary when one admits one’s violation. In the instant case, the Petitioner admitted his guilt and it was not necessary to give him an opportunity of hearing. Still the Petitioner was given an opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him so as not to punish him unheard.

According to the service condition, the Petitioner was not supposed to carry his personal cash while conducting his duty. In case he does so, he has to immediately notify the concerned person prior to his journey. The Petitioner was a repeated offender of the said offense.

The Respondents have contended that the Petioner from the very beginning was aware of the charges and the service rule which guided him. He intentionally relied upon some irrelevant documents to bypass the whole issue and misleading the Court as a result.

Further, the entire proceedings had been conducted strictly in accordance to law confirming the principles of natural justice. The Respondents argued that the charge sheet clearly states the charges levelled against the Petitioner and the copy of the depositions were duly forwarded to him. Though the Petitioner was present during the hearing, he abstained from cross-examining the witnesses.

Lastly, the Respondents argued that the onus is upon the employee to show that he was prejudiced due to any action or inaction on the part of the Respondent, as has been held in Union of India v. Alok Kumar (2010 5 SCC 349).

Held

The Court held that since there is no documentary evidence of the alleged merger of the Company, the Petitioner continues to be an employee of the Company guided by the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service Regulation.

The Court relied on Form-91from where it appears that though the Petioner claimed that he had kept the money for purchasing medicines, he did not possess the doctor’s prescription according to which he claimed to purchase medicines.

As the Petitioner was performing his duty, it was incumbent of him to disclose the amount of personal cash he has carrying prior to his journey. If the Petioner is unable to give satisfactory explanation with supporting documents for the same, he becomes liable for the same. To prevent and avoid mixing up of personal cash with the cash collected officially, the Company has a rule of disclosure of personal cash prior to embarking upon a journey. Non-observance of the said rule leads to the conclusion that the excess money is unaccounted for and reflects lack of devotion and care, diligence and sincerity. As the Petitioner himself admitted that he carried the money without disclosing the same prior to his journey, it amounts to admission of guilt.

The Court held that a bare reading of the charge sheet will make it distinctly clear about the charges levelled. The charge sheet possess all the details of the allegations imposed, Articles of Charges, information regarding the members of the Checking squad, the amount held in excess by the Petitioner. There is no iota of doubt regarding the definiteness of the charges brought against the Petitioner, It is specific and unambiguous.

Regarding the issue of non-receipt of hearing notices resulting in violation of the principle of natural justice, the Court, held that the track reports reveal that the notices were delivered to the Petitioner.

The submission of the Respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition had been considered by the Court. The Court took the consistent stand of the of the Supreme Court that availability of an alternative remedy will not be a complete bar in entertaining writ petition alleging violation of the principle of natural justice

The Court reiterated that in case of domestic principles strict rules of evidence need not be followed. As long as some evidence is available, the disciplinary authority can act on the basis of the same. There is no apparent illegality in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the authorities. The Court reinstated the principle that when the Statute lays down a particular manner for proceeding with the disciplinary proceeding then it has to be conducted in the prescribed manner and in no other manner.