Narendra Yadav v. Dilip Rangwani and Anr.

1. The present petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 01st June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 318/2018. By the said order, the Division Bench had given liberty to the petitioner herein to urge the issue regarding justification and relevancy of the additional documents produced during the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, that were not part of the charge sheet. It was directed that if such arguments were raised by the petitioner, the same would be addressed by the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer and specific findings would be rendered therein.

2. As per the petitioner, the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer did not deal with the grounds urged by him pertaining to the production of additional documents before the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer. On the one hand, the Enquiry Officer observed that he was not inclined to consider the additional documents, while on the other hand, the same have been considered in the final Enquiry Report. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding the additional documents were not decided by the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer. Hence, the present petition has been filed on the ground that the respondents have violated the order dated 01st June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following submissions: 3.[1] The respondent has not considered the illegality committed by the Management Witness, i.e., MW-2, by producing fake documents during his deposition. There is no provision in the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 (“CDA Rules”) which entitles a witness to produce before the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer fresh documents, which are not entered in the charge sheet. 3.[2] As per the Rule 31(11) of the CDA Rules, production of oral or documentary evidence related to the charge sheet before the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer, is done by the Disciplinary Authority alone. The production of new documents by the Management Witness unrelated to the charge sheet, is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer. 3.[3] Pursuant to the order dated 01st June, 2018 passed by the Division Bench, the petitioner sent a communication to the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer to decide the issues raised by him regarding the additional documents. In response thereto, the respondent sent reply dated 20th August, 2018 and informed the petitioner that the issues raised by him regarding the additional documents, shall be discussed in the Enquiry Report. 3.[4] In view of order dated 01st June, 2018, the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer was enjoined upon to give specific findings relating to the justification and otherwise with respect to the production of such additional documents, which were not part of the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer did not deal with the grounds urged by the petitioner before him. 3.[5] On the one hand, the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer has observed that he is not inclined to consider these additional documents. However, the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer has conveniently considered the said documents while considering the charges against the petitioner, which is evident from noting the statement of MW-2 in respect of Charge No. 2, which clearly discusses the audio clipping, i.e., MWE-3. 3.[6] The respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer has not addressed the issues raised by the petitioner and no finding has been given by him in respect of the additional documents submitted by the Management Witness during his deposition, which were not related to the charge sheet. 3.[7] Vide order dated 01st June, 2018, the Court had permitted the petitioner to cross-examine the witness regarding veracity and genuineness of such documents. However, during the cross-examination, when the petitioner asked questions to the witness, the Presenting Officer of the Management raised objection each and every time, which objection was accepted by the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer. Thus, the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to question veracity and genuineness of the documents produced by the Management Witness.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted as follows: 4.[1] The orders passed by this Court have been followed scrupulously and no contempt has been committed. 4.[2] The respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer has not considered the three exhibits, i.e., MWE-1, MWE-2 and MWE-3 while arriving at his findings and has not taken cognizance of the same. 4.[3] Opportunity was granted by the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness on the additional documents, in accordance with the direction given by this Court in order dated 01st June, 2018, which opportunity was availed of by the petitioner. 4.[4] The respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer has taken full cognizance of the petitioner’s objections to the said documents in his Enquiry Report and has examined the charges levied against the petitioner, without taking into account, the said documents. 4.[5] The earlier contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) No. 753/2018, was dismissed as withdrawn, without seeking or obtaining leave of the Court to file fresh contempt petition on the same cause of action. The petitioner has, thus, abused the process of law by filing the present petition.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

6. Facts on record show that the petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 20th May, 2016, pursuant to which the respondent no.1 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) NO. 8835/2017 to quash the said charge sheet. The said petition was dismissed by order dated 27th September, 2017, thereby holding that since the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, challenge to the charge sheet was not permissible at that stage. The appeal against the said order being LPA No. 703/2017 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17th November,

2017.

7. During the course of the enquiry proceedings, a Management Witness, MW-2, during his cross-examination produced two letters exhibited as MWE-1 and MWE-2 and an audio clipping as exhibit MWE-3, in support of his statement that he had been receiving complaints against the petitioner at regular intervals. The said documents were not amongst the documents originally annexed to the charge sheet.

8. The petitioner challenged the admissibility of the said documents produced by the aforesaid witness in the enquiry proceedings, by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1750/2018. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23rd February, 2018 by holding that since the enquiry against the petitioner was in progress, the evidentiary value of the said documents will be considered by the respondent no.1-Enquiry Officer at the conclusion of the enquiry. The order dated 23rd February, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1750/2018 reads as under:

is not required to be considered by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. These aspects have to be considered by the Inquiry Officer at the conclusion of the inquiry.

4. In view of the aforesaid, this petition and application are disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise the pleas taken in this petition, before the Inquiry Officer.”

9. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal being LPA NO. 318/2018, which came to be disposed of by order dated 01st June, 2018, in the following manner: “The appellant is aggrieved by an order of learned Single Judge who declined to grant substantive relief even though an important aspect of this relief was recognized and provided for in the impugned order. The appellant had urged that the production of additional documents by a management witness in the course of departmental inquiry was beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the domestic tribunal/inquiry officer. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the inquiry was limited to the charges levelled against alleged delinquent employee, and confined to the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet and supplied to him. In these circumstances, the production of fresh material could not be countenanced. The learned Single Judge quite correctly in our opinion permitted the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses who produced the documents. It was open to the appellant therefore to question the witnesses as to the veracity and genuineness of such documents. Thereafter the appellant is at liberty to urge the ground relevant to the issue i.e. the justification or otherwise under rules or concerned standing orders/regulations with respect to the production of such additional documents which were not part of the charge-sheet, during the course of the inquiry by the management witnesses as well as their genuineness. If such arguments are made the inquiry officer would address himself to those issues and render specific findings. Rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.”

10. Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 01st June, 2018 demonstrates that the petitioner herein was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses who produced the documents and to also question the witnesses as regards the veracity and genuineness of such documents. Further, the petitioner was also granted liberty to raise the issue regarding the justification of production of such additional documents which were not part of the charge sheet. It was held by the Division Bench that if such issues were raised by the petitioner, the said issues would be addressed by the Enquiry Officer.

11. Subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order dated 01st June, 2018, the petitioner moved an application being CM No. 35083/2018 praying for directions to the Enquiry Officer to decide the objections raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 24th July, 2018, as per the direction contained in order dated 01st June, 2018. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 31st August, 2018, by holding as follows: “CM No.35083/2018 (direction) This is an application filed by the appellant in an appeal which was disposed of on 01.06.2018. Reliance is placed on the following portion of the order which was passed on 01.06.2018. “it was open to the appellant therefore to question the witnesses as to the veracity and genuineness of such documents. Thereafter the appellant is at liberty to urge the ground relevant to the issue i.e. the justification or otherwise under rules or concerned standing orders/regulations with respect to the production of such additional documents which were not part of the chargesheet, during the course of the inquiry by the management witnesses as well as their genuineness. If such arguments are made the inquiry officer would address himself to those issues and render specific findings. Rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stands disposed of. Order dasti under signatures of the court Master.” The complaint of the appellant/applicant is that the Inquiry officer has not complied with the directions so passed. Mr. Koura, counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/IOCL on an advance copy, submits that the inquiry has been concluded however the appellant has not filed his written submissions and post the filing of the written submissions, the final order would be passed. Mr. Koura further submits that the Inquiry Officer would certainly take into account the observations made by the Court in its order dated 01.06.2018. In view of the stand taken, Mr. Sinha, counsel for the appellant submits that no further orders are required to be passed, however, he seeks liberty to raise such grounds available to him in case, the order dated 01.06.2018 is not complied with by the Inquiry Officer. As prayed, 15 days time is granted which is not opposed by the respondent to the appellant to file the written submissions. The application is disposed of. Dasti, as prayed.”