Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Petitioner submitted that he was working in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SAIL' for brevity) for about fifteen years and took voluntary retirement as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "VRS" for short) on 31st August 2002. For five years he worked in private sector companies. Pursuant to the notification dated 9th May 2007 issued by the second respondent-Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'HAL' for brevity), inviting applications from professionals for various posts, he submitted his candidature for the post of Deputy General Manager (PPC) since he satisfied the qualification and eligible criteria to the said post. While submitting application to the HAL, he had submitted Résumé in which he had stated the fact of having taken voluntary retirement from SAIL and the same was clearly mentioned therein. The copy of the Résumé has been produced as Annexure-E to the writ petition. The petitioner further submitted that he has also submitted his service certificate, which mentions about his taking voluntary retirement and copy of the said certificate is also produced along with the petition. He has not suppressed not hidden any facts which are supposed to be disclosed to HAL. There was an interview on 9th July 2007 in which he was asked reasons for leaving Public Sector Unit and the petitioner satisfied the questions posed by the Committee Members. The Committee Members have verified the certificates issued by the SAIL authority and after having verified all the testimonials produced by the petitioner, he was selected as Deputy General Manager (PPC). It is his submission that the respondent having noticed and satisfied the fact that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement from SAIL and after having examined the relevant records, he was selected. The petitioner further submitted that at the time of interview, the petitioner was given an employment questionnaire in which the details of his last employment like salary, reporting structure were asked and the petitioner has correctly filled the form giving all the particulars. The copy of the questionnaire has been produced with the petition for perusal. He reported for duty on 3rd August 2007 and he was given joining form in which also details of each of the job he has done earlier was asked; and the same was furnished. The petitioner further submitted that his services were confirmed by declaring that probationary period as satisfactorily completed by its communication dated 11th November 2008. In the meanwhile, a communication was received by the respondent on 30th October 2008 from SAIL asking for refund of voluntary retirement scheme benefits from the petitioner. Despite the said communication, declaring the probationary period as satisfactorily completed itself shows that prior to the confirmation nothing was committed nor can it be construed as misconduct on the part of the petitioner. On 15th April 2009, Assistant General Manager (HR) wrote a letter to General Manager (MRO) Division, HAL giving clear instructions to conduct disciplinary action against the petitioner for hiding the fact of voluntary retirement in employment questionnaire. It is submitted that the Officer who has written the said letter himself was a Member in the Committee and was instrumental in selecting the petitioner after a detailed interview. But no action was initiated. The petitioner submitted that till 2009, there was no letter from SAIL to the petitioner and on the first occasion on 29th June 2009, he had received a letter from SAIL asking to refund Rs.8,96,588/- without providing any details of calculation. For the past six years, i.e. from the date of his relieving from the SAIL no letter has been addressed for repayment of voluntary retirement scheme benefit. The petitioner wrote back to the SAIL asking to clarify the exact amount and also stating that the income tax deducted at source was not paid to the petitioner. As things stood thus, the petitioner had made demand to pay as per the notification of appointment as it is his case that there was a deduction in payment in contravention of the notification. Having felt discomfort, the petitioner was transferred to Koraput in Orissa during 2011. Since the transfer was not as per the transfer policy of the company, as the same requires minimum tenure of ten years in one location and the petitioner has served only four years in Bangalore, he requested the authorities to give effect to the said guidelines and to retain him in the same place. Despite making request, the petitioner accepted the transfer order and moved to Orissa in the month of October, 2011 and stayed for eight months without getting any entitled family accommodation, etc. In March 2012 an internal circular was issued on behalf of the second respondent mentioning about a vacancy in HMA and the petitioner applied for the said post and he appeared for interview. In the interview petitioner got selected to the said post. In order to prevent the petitioner from reporting back at Bangalore a charge sheet was issued and according to the petitioner the charge sheet is issued only out of vengeance, is biased and as a measure of victimization. The petitioner was asked to furnish explanation within seven days from the date of its receipt and within the stipulated time he has furnished reply and requested the respondent to drop the proceedings since he has not suppressed or hidden any materials. In his reply he has stated that he is ready to repay the voluntary retirement scheme benefit after the same is rectified from SAIL. He has also stated in his representation that he had got the benefit amount of Rs.9.00 lakh from SAIL of which 30% was deducted at source as income tax and he has taken about 6.00 lakh. If anything is to be repaid, it is only Rs.6.00 lakh and not Rs.9.00 lakh and the communication between the SAIL and the petitioner stood at that stage. The initiation of enquiry and proceedings of enquiry has been challenged by the petitioner. It is his case that the respondent has not summoned witnesses for evidence and also documents have not been furnished. The initiation of enquiry is mala fide, capricious and colourable exercise of power.

5. The petitioner has taken the following grounds. That the charge sheet was issued by the wrong disciplinary authority and the incompetent authority. At the time of issuance of charge sheet he was in Orissa at Koraput and he is Grade-I Officer for whom the disciplinary authority is the concerned Divisional Head in respect of Divisions and concerned Head of Department in respect of Complex Office and Corporate Office. The Director or the concerned authority at HAL, Koraput, Orissa was competent to issue charge sheet, where as the charge sheet has been issued by Managing Director (HC) a Disciplinary Authority at HAL Bangalore, who is not competent. Hence on this ground also the charge sheet vitiates. He submitted that Rule 5(xi) of the CDA Rules does not cover non-furnishing of remittance of VRS benefits for the purpose of misconduct. The respondent had no authority to extend the meaning to include a point not covered in the Rules. Rule 5 of the CDA Rules, which has been extracted in the charge sheet is not completely quoted but left blank to include new circumstances for the purpose of misconduct. The charge cannot be leveled against the petitioner which is not falling either under Rule 4 or Rule 5 of the CDA Rules. Hence, he submitted that the charge sheet is liable to set aside since it contravenes CDA Rules. He has referred Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to submit that the suit relating to claim should have been made three years ago and in the instant case it is about seven years old claim from the date of voluntary retirement and hence the action of the respondent in initiating recovery is barred by limitation. Despite request made, the respondent has not provided requisite documents and witnesses sought for etc.

3. You are hereby called upon to submit your explanation in writing as to why Disciplinary Action should not be taken against you on the charges indicated above. Your explanation should reach the undersigned within SEVEN days from the date of receipt of this Charge Sheet, failing which further action as deemed fit under the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 will be taken against you.

(P. SOUNDARA RAJAN) MD(HC)& DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY Shri Arul Selvan CM (MS & IT)-Koraput HAL, Koraput, Orissa"

13. The petitioner has alleged malice against the respondent. It is also further alleged that his demand for payment of salary as per the employment notification was the root cause for issuance of charge sheet and also imposing punishment. The said submission has been examined in the light of the facts stated at paragraphs No.10, 16, 19 and 20 of the petition wherein he has stated that his salary, instead of increasing by Rs.10,000/- per month as promised by the respondent in the advertisement, was reduced by Rs.20,000/- per month. He has agitated for non-payment of salary as per Notification and further for reducing the same. This agitation has been taken serious note of by the respondent and thereafter they started harassing the petitioner. His request for salary as per Notification was rejected on frivolous grounds like three months period has elapsed and more salary would be paid after DA merger, etc. There was no reply to the point of Project- linked allowance of Rs.75,000/- per annum, which was promised in the appointment order and the same was never paid. The said denial of salary was due to the persistent demand of the petitioner to pay the salary as promised and due to personal vengeance and with an ulterior motive of stopping the petitioner from approaching the Court and to teach the other officers a lesson not to raise their voice against management. The petitioner was transferred on September 2011 prematurely to Koraput Unit, Orissa. The said transfer order was in contravention of the policy of the respondent, which requires minimum tenure of ten years in one place, whereas the petitioner had put in only four years of service in Bangalore. As per the said transfer order he has reported at Koraput Unit, Orissa. As the petitioner was so serving, in the month of March, 2012 an internal circular was issued on behalf of the second respondent about a vacancy in HMA, Bangalore. The feature of the said post is that, if a candidate is selected, one has to serve in Bangalore for a period of three years. The petitioner got selected from among twenty applicants and he had to come back to Bangalore. In the meanwhile, the charge sheet has been issued by the third respondent on 12th April 2012, as a part of vengeance and to teach a lesson to the petitioner and also to prevent him from reporting at Bangalore. After the petitioner being selected, he came from Koraput Unit and reported at Bangalore and this transfer of him back to Bangalore was not taken kindly by the respondent No.3 and the said transfer order to Bangalore got cancelled arbitrarily and further the petitioner was transferred back to Koraput Unit. This action has been challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.39603 of 2012 and in the said writ petition an interim order of stay and there was no material available for the respondent to get the same vacated. This made the respondent to consider the findings of the enquiry officer and dismissed him from service.