Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
N Parida vs National Aluminium Company Limited, ... on 26 April, 2023
ENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.AWae. 260 /00569 of 2616
Reserved on: 11.04.2083 Pronounced ars
CORAM:
Niranjan Parida, Aged about S6 years, 5/o- late Nityananda
Parida, Presently worngs af PNG. O36 79, Superi itendent
{Gp} Gr 1 Cast House-B (Qpre.}, Smelter Plant, NALCO,
é
3
An Seu,
we Applicant
Far dye Applicant: Mr. N.Pihsa, Counsel
-Versus-
i. National Aluminium Company Ltd. Through its Chairman
cum Managing Ulrecter, Smelter and Power Conyplex,
Nalconagar, Angul-759145,
&. Asstt. General Manager (§
' TREY, Smctesr and Power
Complex, Naiconagar, Angul-?59 1
. Executive Director (S&P), Smelter and Power Complex,
Nalconagar, Angul-? 591 45.
4, The Directer (Production). Aluminium Company Lt,
Bhubaneswar.
wo Respondents
Par the Respanderite: Mys. MK Mishra, DA Satnaik, Counsel
SeHOORGF of
ORDER
Swarun Kumar Mishra, Member {}):
in this OA, the applicant has prayed te quash the order of punishment dated 12.03.2016 {A/S}, the order of the Appellate O6.2016 [A/8) upholding the punishment impased g i Authority dated 13 by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 27.07.2016 (A/10) giving effect to the order of punishment on various grounds, taken in the OA and rejoinder Nied by him ater Aling af counter by the | respondents describing it as legal, arbitrary, In violation af principle af natural fustice, equity and fair play.
a. Respondents contested the case of the applicant through cou as alsa in course of hearing.
3, The sur and substance of the case of the respandents is that there being no infraction of rules and principles of natural fustice starting from initiation af proceedings wl the order of Appellate Authority and, that, the punishment was imps ased based on evidence, ere is ne senpe for this Tribunal te interfere in the matter and to fortify thelr contentions, Ld. Counsel fer the respondents has placed reHance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOT SY A Ba OR WANG 2h Ors, Vs. Paunasekoran, (2015) 2 SCC 6810, Accordingly, respondents' caunsel has prayed for dismi ofthis case, 4m the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has subinitted that thers was clear violativn af the principle of natural justice inasmuch the Disciplinary Authority imposed the order of punishment without giving Aim onpertunity by way of supplyhig Bim the copy of the LQ. as, according to the applicant, the report of the LO. crepancies. Further, if is contended thar the DA imposed the punishment in a cryptic order, which was also upheld by the without due application of mind and without examining the vital aspect af the matter ax to whether the proceedings was conducted and concluded in strict observance of rales and principles of natural justice. Be Arguments having been heard, perused th é records, Q, ibis seen from the record that after the conclusion of the incuiry, the DA based on the safdl report of the Inquiry imposed the punishment an the applicant vide order dated T2.03.c078. imposition of punishment, when the applicant sought for the report of the tnguiry, the same was sugglied ty him vide letter dated LHOS.2016 (LAs4), XY a # .
whick does not meet the requirement of law/principle of natural aw Sarees ot nih hts MANa. 26 bee Aen justice, Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer/authority, who is appainted by the disciplinary au thority fo hold an Inquiry Into the charges against the delinquent employee, is required to be furnished to the emyNoyee fo © syable him fo make proper representation fo the Disciplinary Authority before suc h authority arrives at its own Hnding with rer ard to the guilt or otherwise of Ue employee and the ne in several cases before x re punishment, [any to be awarded to him the Hon'ble Apex Court and the leading decision on the subject is in the ease of Managing Director, ECHL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors{(1993) 4 SCC 727) wherein the Hon 'ble Apex Court after taking note of several decisions held that where the Inquiry cheer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break Into Pw shiges. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at Its canclusions on the basis of the evidence, Inquiry Officer's repart and the delinguent employee's reply to i The second stage begins when the Disciplinary Authority decides to impose penalty on the basis af its conclusians. If the Disciplinary Authority decides te drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not event reached, The employee's right to recelve the report ip wt QA Ne, Se OOS68 of SUF thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself In the first stage of the inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and ta prove his innocence In the disciplinary procecdings.
seen that taking ints consideration the report of a the order af punishm: emt date T2.88.2016 as Under:
"Shis has reference to Cha oh ae Now d "p(SAPY/201 a8
- YS FO issued to Shri i Niranjan Parida, BF. No. 03679 Supernten vient (Qprn) Gril, Cast House B(Oprn) of Smelter Mant, NALCO and i the domestic enquiry conducted into the charges levelled against him in the said Chargeshest.
The proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer have carefully been gone through by the Disciplinary Authority. It is found by him that Shri Parida has been given reasonable opportunity to defend Ure charges im " enquiry and the enquiry has been conducted in Kis presence After careful examination of the enqmry report, the Disciplinary Authority has fully concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. who ba § establish veel three of the charg 2 as per Order No 25810), Order No.25(8) (0) ari] Order NoZ5fAG} af the Corts Hed Stan: ding Orders of the Company, On analysis of the relevant records of the Instant Case, taking Info account the graviby of the msc andducts we beeen & OA8e. LESH f wade committed by Shri Parida, after giving his thorough consideration & proper application af ming to the entire case and with a view fo p rovide opportunity 06 improve his conduct, tre Disciplinary Authority has imposed the fallawing penalty on Shri Niranjan Parida, P. No.O3679, Sap veyintendent{Ggmn. Gril) Cast House: gpm} of Smelter Plant, NALOO under the pre ovisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, applicab le b ta him.
"REDUCTION TQ LOWER GRADE © Shri Niranjan Farida, PL Ne O36?
"yperintendent (Qprn4 Gr IL T-@ grade is reduced to the past of Charg geman Gr. in TS) grade in the pay scale of Le FS500/- with immediate effect, Shri Parida will he eligible e for promotion to T-6 grade after completion if Pe sqquits site period of service in T-? grade from the date of his reduction to the post of Chargeman Grand he will draw his normal increment in T 7 grade as per the extant rules c sf the Company.
Against this order, the applicant preferred appeal dated a G5.04.20146, The order al the A lated 13.08.2016 (A/8}, which reads as under "This has reference to your appeal dt. 05-04-2016 addressed to Direrter fProduction), NALCO, Bhubaneswar ta review your case and ty exonerate you from the charges levelled against you with reference to Chargesheet No. SRPY2O14/85 dt 17-05-2014 and penalty impased on you vide OfAce Grder No. SANSHEDY Ere f2O18 dt Te-0s-
Your appeal has duly been examined by the Appellate Authority. In this conne ction, the Appelste Authority wile agreeing with the views of the Disciplinary Authority has
2 LANo, ZOU G08 69 oF 2018 upheld the decision of imposition of the penalty on you vide the aforesaid Qffice Qrder dt 12-05-2016. Accordingly, your above appeal ts hereby disposed of"
8. At this st bees ge, we aye rernindsd by the decision of the Hon'ble x Court in the case af Reap Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank P2009) 2 SCC S70 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the Diseiplinar -y Authority as also Appellate Autharity to indicate reasons in support of its order when the delinquent is imposed with ounishment having civil consequence. Further, in the case af Narinder e Mohan Arva Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd. &... in Appeal CCV) F645 of 2O04 dated 5 April, 2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the Appellate Authority, when the rules require application ef mind on several factors and serious contentions have been raised, was hound to assign reasans so ay to enable the writ court Wi ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the statute requires him to de. The expression 'consider' is of some significance. In the contest af the rules, the Appellate Ay whority was required fo see as to whether () the procedure laid down in the rules was complied with: (9) the Enquiry Officer was justified in arriving at et 8 : QANg, 3 SG9 of BES the Hadi felinquent officer was guilty of the osconduct sine a ABAINSE hams and Cy) whether penalty impased by the Tiscin li nary AU AOrity was exe easive, More evidently, it is because It is far two well setded thatan authorin y In making aii order in encrelse of ike quasi-fucicial Ametion, must renord reasons ig support of the arder NS dicial arder must be supported by reasons. The rue requiring reasons in support af a quasifudical order is the basic as following the principles of natura' justice. And the rule oust he obs pved IO HLS proaporanirit, A mere pretence of compliance would donot satishy the requirement of law since, for the interest af justice 2, ID was ent upan the Disc Winary Authority to send a shaw Gaise nation to The applicant, along with | the e-copy af th @ inquiry report, tO give him ee appertunity to fle ary abhi yectlon/reply to the Inquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The same hag nat been dane, PaUsiNE manifest injustice and, thereby the decision makin ag proces aS has been completed villoted, g, in the sbows dreumstanc es, Ns Trilanal is net gai ing | UO Ere mart of the order passed by the Disciplinary Appell late Auth arity ag jb is absolutely necessary te remand hack the matter to the Dis sciplnary Odin 260A Authority sa that he shal) send a show cause notice to the apnlicant, enabling the applicant to make his stand clear before the Disciplinary Authority with regard {to finding. given by the inquiry. officer.
Accor nel ¥, the order of Disciplinary Authority dated P203.2016 (A/S) imposing punishment and the omer of the Appellate Authority dated 13.06.2016 (4/8) are quashes, to 10 QAis allowed with the direction as mentioned above: Nop casts, AMOD KUMAR DAS) + SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) 2 MEMBER [(}} RK/PS