G.N.Ray, J. - (1.) - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 2882(&) of 1981. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner respondent.
(2.) It may be noted here that the writ petitioner respondent No. 1, Manindra Kumar Ghosh also preferred a cross-objection and/or cross-appeal against the judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was not at all maintainable at the instance of the appellant company and there was no occasion to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against him by the appellant company.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Financial Controller of Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited. The petitioner was transferred on deputation to National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd., at Nepanagar and be worked there from 4th June, 1976 to 18th October, 1977 and hereafter he was brought back to parent organisation viz. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited. Thereafter he was transferred to Cachar Paper Project. In June, 1977, when the writ petitioner Manindra Kumar Ghosh was on deputation to the National Newsprint and Paper Mills Limited at Nepanagar, he had to go to Indore and he had stayed at the Central Hotel from 4th June, 1977 to 7th June, 1977. With prior intimation and with permission of the Production Manager of the said Rational Newsprint and Paper Mills Limited. the writ petitioner had taken his wife, daughter and mother-in-law along with him. The writ petitioner had travelled in company's car for such official tour. It is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted the bill for the hotel charge for Rs. 272/- during his period of stay at Indore and obtained such payment from the company. Later on, the writ petitioner caused an enquiry from the hotel administration as to whether or not the said bill was charged only towards his lodging charges without making any separate charge for the other members of his family and on being informed by the hotel administration that in the said bill both the charges of his occupation and the occupation of his guests were included, he refunded the amount which was chargeable for the guests of Sri Ghosh viz. the wife, daughter and mother-in-law accompanying him and staying in the same room of the hotel. On account of drawing excess amount from the company to cover up the cost of lodging of wife, daughter and mother-in-law of the petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and in the said disciplinary proceeding it was found that the petitioner had deliberately overdrawn the accommodation charges for his wife, daughter and mother-in-law in the said hotel during his official visit at Indore, although he was not entitled to draw such accommodation charges for the members of his family, The disciplinary authority was of the view that although the payment was not heavy be since the petitioner was a Financial Controller of the Company and held a very responsible position, such attempt to defraud the company on account of charges payable by him for stay of the members of his family should not be treated lightly and a punishment of dismissal was passed against him. Such order of dismissal was challenged in the writ proceeding and the writ petitioner contended that at the relevant time he was on deputation to another company and as such Hindusthan Paper Construction. Limited had no authority or jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding and impose punishment on him. It was also contended by the petitioner that as a consolidated bill was submitted by hotel, the petitioner was under the impression that when a room had been occupied by him along with the members of his family, no separate accommodation charge was required to be paid on account of lodging of such members of his family. He therefore, submitted the bill for payment and he received such payment from the company. The petitioner also contended that being a Financial Controller, he was very busy with the official works of accounting and after such works were completed, he on his own, caused an enquiry as to whether or not for the occupation of the members of his family accompanying him, the hotel chases for such guests were to be paid. On being informed by the hotel administration that besides the charges for his occupancy, the guests were also charged and the rate for accommodation charges for the guest was indicated, he on his own, refunded the amount (Rs. 100/-) which was payable by him on account of boarding charges of the accompanying members of his family. The petitioner contended that in such circumstances, there was no intention to defraud the company and even if any over payment was received by him from the company, on account of hotel charges due to bona fide mistake he, on his own, had refunded to the company the excess amount drawn by him. It was contended by the writ petitioner that without any just cause and out of malice such proceeding had been initiated and in the facts of the case, the proceeding and the punishment imposed in such proceeding should be quashed.;