Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Facts are taken from Writ Petition No.3414/2019.

14. Rules 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules read as under :

"36. Inquiry Committee. - (1) If an employee is allegedly found to be guilty on [any of the grounds specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 28] and the Management decides to hold an inquiry, it shall do so through a properly constituted Inquiry Committee. Such a committee shall conduct an inquiry only in such cases where major penalties are to be inflicted. The Chief Executive Officer authorised by the Management in this behalf (and in the case of an inquiry against the Head who is also the Chief Executive Officer, the President of the Management) shall WP 3420 of 2019.odt communicate to the employee or the Head concerned by registered post acknowledgement due the allegations and demand from him a written explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the statement of allegations. [(2) If the Chief Executive Officer or the President, as the case may be, finds that the explanation submitted by the employee or the Head referred to in sub-rule (1) is not satisfactory, he shall place it before the Management within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the explanation. The Management shall in turn decide within fifteen days whether an inquiry be conducted against the employee and if it decides to conduct the inquiry, the inquiry shall be conducted by an Inquiry Committee constituted in the following manner, that is to say, -

14.1. Though the role of the convener is not adjudicatory in nature, however, the role has equal importance in the matter of conducting an enquiry. This is evident from a perusal of rule 37 of the MEPS Rules, whereunder by virtue of Rule 37 (1) the charge- sheet; statement of allegations; explanation submitted by the delinquent employee have to be handed over to the convener. Under Rule 37 (2)(a)(i). Under Rule 37 (2) (a),(ii), the explanation by the employee to the charge-sheet has to be submitted to the convener. Under Rule 37 (2) (e) refusal to endorse proceedings in the statement of witnesses has to be recorded by the convener. Under WP 3420 of 2019.odt Rule 37 (4), summary of proceedings and copies of statement of witnesses, if any, have to be forwarded to the employee by RPAD by the convener. Under Rule 37 (5), the employee has to submit his explanation to the convener.

14.6. Over and above it, the Convener then under Rule 36(5) of the MEPS Rules again has to be a person appointed by the management. When the convener is also the representative of the management in the inquiry, the perception of bias stands compounded, for as indicated above, the role of the convener is of WP 3420 of 2019.odt great importance in the enquiry and though he may not be a part of the decision making process, several of the functions assigned to him, under Rule 37 of the MEPS Rules, as indicated above could be crucial in decision making. This is more so in a case where the employee is proceeded exparte when the role of the convener in maintaining and recording of the proceedings and ensuring compliance with the requirements of the provisions as contained in Rule 37, become crucial for ensuring the impartiality and fairness of the enquiry. The finding therefore that there was no actual bias, on the facts, in the present matter, when the representative of the management on the Enquiry Committee was also the convener cannot be sustained, more so when the appointment of the representative of the management on the enquiry committee as well as his appointment as a Convener was objected to by the respondent employee as indicated above.

Though it is correct that in Nandkumar Mahadeo Dengane (supra) the nominee of the management upon the enquiry committee was changed from Smt. Devangana Keni to Shri Prabhakar Jadhav and therefore the enquiry report signed by Shri Prabhakar Jadhav, could not have been held to have been infirm, however that does not deter WP 3420 of 2019.odt from what has been been said about the role of Convener appointed under Rule 36(5) of the MEPS Rules in para 15 as quoted above, as that is a proposition which the Court has culled out from the provision and the factuality of the matter does not have any bearing upon it. That apart, the above incorrect factual position has been stated in reference to vitiating of the enquiry in the context of Rule 37(6) of the MEPS Rules and not otherwise. The contention therefore that Nandkumar Mahadeo Dengane (supra) ought not to be considered cannot be accepted in view of the above position.