Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1075/2013
18th September, 2013 SHRI NARAYAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pranay Mishra, Mr.Nitin Saluja, Mr.Amrit Rathore and Mr.Shiv
Chopra, Advocates.
Through: Mr.Rajiv Shukla and Ms.Sneha Mukherjee, Advocates for
Respondents no.1 and 2.
Mr.Karan Bindra, Mr.Kumar Ankur and Mr.Chayan, Advocates for R-3.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an employee of the respondent no.1-Indian Oil Corporation challenges the impugned order dated 12.11.2012. By the impugned order petitioner’s services were terminated. The impugned order reads as under: Confidential INTER OFFICE MEMO FROM: GM (HR), NR TO: Shri Narayan Singh Emp No.18936 REF: IR/1241 Chargeman (F), Tikrikalan Terminal Date: 12.11.12 Sub: Disciplinary Case against you- Final Order 2013:DHC:4756 This has reference to chargesheet ref IR/N (18936) dated 02.03.12 and the subsequent departmental enquiry held in this connection against you. The proceedings of the enquiry, findings of the EO, and reply dated 05.11.12 to show cause notice dated 01.10.12 for “Dismissal” have been carefully considered by me. I find you guilty of the following acts f misconduct as per Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation: a) Theft, fraud, forgery embezzlement or dishonesty or misappropriating in connection with the Corporation’s business and property. Accordingly, I have decided to impose upon you the penalty of “Dismissal” as a measure of disciplinary action against you. You are further informed that you may, if you so desire, prefer an appeal through proper channel as per the provisions contained in Rule 12.[6] of the P &A Manual for workmen against this order to the Appellate Authority within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Sd/- (J.S.KAUSHAL) GM (HR), NR & CDA
2. In this case, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 2.3.2012 stating that he gave false declaration with respect to children who were not his children and claimed LTC benefits for them. There is also the charge of raising false medical claims including by overwriting/manipulation. Some instances of the same were given in the charge-sheet. The instances which are mentioned in the charge sheet read as under:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Patient’s Document Cash memo Actual amount Amount Difference Modus operandi │ │ No Name no./dt no/date of bill (Rs.) claimed of Amount │ │ . (Rs.) (Rs.) │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Sri Narayan 410009048 75029/24.05.10 4124.00 6124.00 2000.00 Adding an additional digi │ │ Singh 28.05.10 -Ganesh Medicos thousand’s place/overwrit │ │ 2. Smt.Sumati & 4100017557/ 77288/03.07.10 10246.00 14246.00 4000.00 Adding an additional digi │ │ W.P.(C) 1075/2013 Page 2 o │ │ 201 │ │ Sri.Narayan 08.07.10 & thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ Singh 77287/03.07.10- │ │ Ganesh Medicos │ │ 3. Smt.Sumati & 4200010073/ 75666/05.06.10 10821 13821 3000.00 Adding an additional digit in │ │ Sri.Narayan 08.06.10 & thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ Singh 75664/05.06.10 │ │ -Ganesh Medicos │ │ 4. Smt.Sumati & 4200005741/ 73916/09.05.10- 10573.00 12573.00 2000.00 Adding an additional digit in │ │ Sri.Narayan 11.05.10 Ganesh Medicos thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ Singh │ │ 5. Sri Narayan 4200011387/ 9279/11.06.10- 3075.00 6075.00 3000.00 Adding an additional digit in │ │ Singh 17.06.10 Friends Medical thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ Store │ │ 6. Sri Narayan 4200007207/ 74282/15.05.10- 2444.00 5444.00 3000.00 Adding an additional digit in │ │ Singh 20.05.10 Ganesh Medicos thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ 7. Sri Narayan 4200015897 78314/14.07.10 3770.00 5770.00 2000.00 Adding an additional digit in │ │ Singh Ganesh Medicos thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ 8. Smt.Sumati & 4200022889/ 81249, 81258 & 11118.00 16118.00 5000.00 Adding an additional digit in │ │ Sri.Narayan 01.09.10 81251/25.08.10 thousand’s place/overwriting │ │ Singh Ganesh Medicos │ │ 3. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner responded vide letter │ │ dated 10.4.2012. He stated that nothing wrong has been done by him │ │ intentionally. There was no specific denial of the specific instances │ │ mentioned in the charge-sheet. In the reply it was also stated that if │ │ something wrong has happened, since the petitioner had done it │ │ unintentionally, therefore he should be exonerated. This reply dated │ │ 10.4.2012 reads as under: │ │ 10-04-2012 │ │ The General Manager (HR), │ │ Indian Oil Corporation Limited, │ │ (Marketing Division) │ │ Northern Region, │ │ Yusuf Sarai, │ │ New Delhi. │ │ Sub.: Chargesheet │ │ Respected Sir, │ │ I am very much surprised and shocked to received the Chargesheet │ │ W.P.(C) 1075/2013 Page 3 of 10 │ │ 2013:DHC:4756 │ │ Ref.No.IR/N (18936) dated 02-03-2012 wherein very serious charges on │ │ account of medical bills and LTC have been levelled against me. │ │ In this regard, I would like to state that nothing has been done wrong │ │ intentionally but if something has been found wrong by the Management │ │ while reimbursing the medical claims, I feel that the same would have │ │ happened absolutely unintentionally. For the past few years, I have not │ │ been keeping good health; hence not keeping proper shape of mind. I │ │ think if at all something has taken place, it would have been during this │ │ period only. │ │ Keeping in view of the above, I request you to kindly exonerate me of the │ │ charges levelled against me. │ │ Thanking you, │ │ Yours faithfully, │ │ (Narayan Singh) │ │ PF No.18936 │ │ Chargeman (F) │ │ Tikrikalan Terminal │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
11. With respect to the conduct of departmental enquiry it is well settled that principles of natural justice are not inflexible hidebound rules. Application of principles of natural justice vary as per the facts of each case. The Supreme Court has held that strict provisions of Evidence Act do not apply in the departmental enquiry. Aforesaid aspects as to principles of natural justice in their application varies depending on the facts of each case as also that strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to departmental proceedings as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716.
12. In view of the above, in the present case, since the petitioner repeatedly admitted the charges against him, never demanded documents; whether before commencing of the enquiry, during the enquiry proceedings or even before the Disciplinary Authority; therefore, I do not find that there is any violation of principles of natural justice as is sought to be urged before me by the petitioner.
13. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to grant relief by setting aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2012, and the writ petition is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 rb