Bombay High Court
Senior Regional Manager, Food ... vs M.P. Agnani And Anr. on 13 January, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988(1)BOMCR425
Author: S.P. Bharucha
Bench: S.P. Bharucha
JUDGMENT S.P. Bharucha, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Mrs. Manohar, J., making absolute the rule issued in the writ petition filed by the respondents.
2. The respondents were employed by the Food Corporation of India. They were suspected of the theft of 88 bags of rice and were suspended. Criminal proceedings were started which ended in an order of acquittal in appeal. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was commenced against the respondents in the same connection. Upon completion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, on 3rd April, 1981, passed an order which was impugned in the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order reads thus :
3. AND WHEREAS on a careful consideration of the Inquiry Report and proceedings of the case submitted by Shri R.K. Atal the undersigned finds that one of the crucial documents viz. the list document at Sr. No. 18 of the Annexure-III of the chargesheet i.e. the statement dated 28-3-1972 of delinquent Shri R.V. Hande has not been formally exhibited and marked as exhibit in the enquiry through the witnesses though the same was inspected earlier by all concerned. The said statement contains some significant admissions and statements from one of the delinquents himself. Similarly the listed document at Sr. No. 20 of the said Annexures III viz. the unsigned statement dated 1-4-72 of the co-delinquent Shri Agnani recorded by the Asstt. Manager (Security) has not been exhibited in the case when one of the charges is to the effect that delinquent refused to sign that statement. Further, other listed documents at Sr. No. 11, 14 and 16 are also not marked as exhibits in the enquiry on behalf of the Prosecution. As regards the handwriting in the truck tare weight chits, the same should have been sent to the handwriting expert if it was considered necessary before closing the case, since instructions to that effect were already given to P.O. to bring out all relevant facts on record formally.
4. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 59 of the Staff Regulations, 1971 hereby :-
(i) Orders to a further enquiry to be held in the instant case as above.
(ii) remits the case to Shir R.A. Atal, Jt. Manager & Enquiry Officer for further enquiry to bring out all relevant facts as record."
3. The writ petition contended that Regulation 59 of the Staff Regulations, 1971, referred to in the order, did not contemplate an order the enquiry in circumstances such as those of the present case.
4. The relevant portion of Regulation 59 reads thus :---
"59. Action on the inquiry report.---(1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 58 as far as may be."
5. The learned Judge held that the power to remit for further enquiry and report could not be used to make good defects or lacunae in the work done by the Presenting Officer. If Regulation 59 were interpreted to uphold the action of the Disciplinary Authority, a charge-sheeted employee could be subjected to repeated enquiries upon the same charge until it was brought home.
6. After the judgment and order of the learned Judge the Food Corporation of India has, upon the basis of the enquiry report, passed orders of dismissal against the respondents, which are the subject matter of another writ petition in this Court. Mr. Advani has, however, pressed this appeal, as he is entitled to do.
7. Mr. Advani laid great stress on the words "further enquiry" in the relevant portion of Regulation 59 and submitted that, as a matter of plain English, the order of the disciplinary authority fell within the ambit of his powers thereunder.
8. Where material exists with the Presenting Officer and he does not, for whatever reason, bring it on record, it would be contrary to the principles of fair play that the charge-sheeted employee should be subjected to a further enquiry at the behest of the Disciplinary Authority to bring that material on record. The further enquiry that is contemplated by Regulation 59 is for the real purpose of further enquiry. It is not intended to give the employer another opportunity to prove its case by bringing on record before the Enquiry Officer material that was already available to it or to enable the Presenting Officer to carry out some instruction given by it to him that he has not obeyed.
9. The relevant portion of the Regulation, it will be noted, requires reasons for ordering the further enquiry and report to be recorded is writing. The intention, clearly, is that the reasons should be subject to judicial scrutiny. The power of ordering a further enquiry and report is not, thus, without limitation.
10. Having regard to the facts before us, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority dated 3rd April, 1981.
11. The appeal is dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.