Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Budhadev Tudu vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 11 March, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
CIRCUIT SITTING : BILASPUR
T.A. NO. 60 OF 2013
Dated: 11th March, 2016
HONBLE MEMBER MR. S.K. PATTNAIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MEMBER MR. K.N. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
Budhadev Tudu, S/o Gobinda Chandra Tudu, resident of Flat No.201, Kalpakruti Apartment, Ashishnagar, Risali, Bhilai (C.G.), working in the post of Senior Manager (T&D) Organization) at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhila, District Durg (C.G.).
- Applicant
By Advocate Shri T.K. Tiwari.
V e r s u s
1. Steel Authority of India Limited, through its Managing Director, Bhilali Steel Plant, Bhilali, Durg, C.G.
2. Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority, Steel Authority of India, New Delhi.
3. Shri S.P.S. Jaggi, D.G.M. (P-HRIS) cum Enquiry Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg, C.G.
-Respondents
By Advocate Shri S.K. Pande.
O R D E R
S.K. Pattnaik, Member (J) :- The applicant seeks quashing of the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 07.05.2008 (Annexure P/3) and order of Appellate Authority passed on 02.06.2008 (Annexure P/5). The Disciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment of reduction from E-5 grade to E-3 grade with cumulative effect to be eligible for promotion to next higher grade E-4 on completion of three years of service from the date of issue of the punishment order. The Appellate Authority, however, modified the penalty and imposed a major penalty of reduction from grade E-5 to E-4 at the minimum of basic pay in grade E-4 with cumulative effect w.e.f. 07.05.2008 to be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade after completion of three years of service from 07.05.2008.
2. The applicants case in short runs as follows:-
The applicant, while working in the post of Sr. Manager in the Department of Transport and Diesel (T&D) Organization at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg, C.G., on 10th March 2006, a surprise check was conducted by the Vigilance Department of respondent No.1. During the check, some irregularities were found. The applicant was on leave on that day. After his joining on 29.12.2006, he was received a charge sheet that contained to Articles of Charges. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, in his enquiry report dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure P/2), held that the first article of charge is not proved viz failing to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, however, for his inability to detect and prevent the manipulation in the movement and weighment of wagons in his work area, which continued sporadically if not on regular basis. The E.O., however, held him guilty for the viz second article of charge failing to ensure all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of employees in his control resulting in negligence in performance of duty. The Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 07.05.2008 (Annexure P/3) observed that the applicant had failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of employees under his control and authority and exhibited negligence in performance of his duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company and further held that he should have prevented in movement and weighment of wagons that resulted in reporting higher net weight of wagons and gross financial loss to the company. The Appellate Authority though did not find the applicant personally guilty or involved in the alleged weighment of wagons, but found him guilty mainly for supervisory fake failure and, therefore, reduced the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The main ground taken by the ld. counsel for the applicant is that though direct involvement of the applicant has not been found yet the applicant is wrongly being held responsible for his alleged supervisory work. According to the ld. counsel for the applicant, the applicant has not been found guilty for the substantive charge i.e. Article-1 and was not found personally involved in the pilferage and weighment in the wagons. The learned counsel further submitted that since the weighment was not the assigned job of the applicant and as he was entrusted with only supervisory duty, the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate and liable to be set aside.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in view of the grave financial loss that was being caused to the organization on a regular basis, the minimum punishment given to the applicant for his supervisory failure is fully justified. It was also submitted that the Steel Authority of India Ltd., being a Government Company and designated as State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as a Public Sector Employee, the applicant should have shown more devotion to duty. Further, the case of the respondents is that the modus-operandi of the manipulation was found during a surprise check, which was carried out by the Vigilance Department at Open Hearth Station on 10.05.2006 at 21.00 hrs, wherein a rake consisting of five HDW wagons loaded with dump scrap placed at Stock Yard of SMS-1 were brought back for re-weighment at in-motion weigh bridge of Open Hearth Station. The above 5 HDW wagons were weighed at 250.60 T before vigilance check, but found to be weighing 420.52 T, i.e. higher by 169.92 T found when weighed in the presence of vigilance. Further, the case of the respondents is that due to the re-weighment, it was clear that false gross weighment of rake No.477 was recorded by weigh bridge clerk. The respondents have also stated as to how there was difference in weighment recorded prior and after the vigilance check. According to the respondents, average amount paid to M/s FSNL on monthly basis before vigilance check i.e. from April 2005 to Feb 2006 was Rs.1.17 crores approximately per month, but in the month of March, 2006, it was reduced to Rs.50-60 lakh per month, which will indicate that there were gross irregularities in the weighment which was going on unabated due to the supervisory failure of the applicant.
4. In a case of this nature, when the vigilance check emphatically proved that there were irregularities in weighment causing loss of crores of rupees to the respondents organization, no fault can be found in the action of the Appellate Authority in awarding the given punishment to the applicant and that too only for three years. The applicant should be happy that he has not been removed from service for such lapses. A Supervisor Officer is stationed to check the wrong doings and irregularities of the sub-ordinates and if under his nose, such wrong figures were are shown in weighment with intention to give financial favour to another company, certainly it comes under modern definition of Scam. Since the applicant was not weighing personally and was not present on the very date of the vigilance checking, he got let off from the first charge, but the very misconduct of showing wrong weighment cannot be said to a sporadic action of other employees. Had there been slightest difference in weighment with 1 or 2 T in weighment of a rake, the matter would have been viewed separately. But as the weighment was shown less than 100 T, it cannot be a slip, but must be held as a dreadful act consciously done for ulterior motives and to the detriment to the interest of the company.
5. Ld. counsel for the applicant relied on a plethora of judgments, such as (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713 in Narinder Mohan Arya vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; AIR 1984 SC 380; 2006(3) M.P.H.T 566; 2011(8) SCC 155; Sohanlal Rajpurohit vs The Chairman RRVP Nigam Ltd., Jaipur & anr; 2014(1) CGLJ 124; 2007 STPL (LE) 38325 SC. There is no dispute about the legal proposition. However, as the Tribunal has limited scope in a Departmental Proceeding, no interference is called for as long as the prescribed procedure for the conduct of the D.E. has been followed and the punishment given is not disproportionate to the offence committed. The applicant was given full scope to participate in the proceeding and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. We find that the enquiry has been conducted in the prescribed manner and the punishment given is not disproportionate to the offence committed.
6. In view of the foregoing, the O.A. is found devoid of merit. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
[K.N. Shrivastava] [S.K. Pattnaik] Member (A) Member (J) sks/-
// 2 // T.A.60 of 2013