Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This writ petition is made challenging the order of removal of service of the petitioner passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and disciplinary authority of the respondent company on 17th-19th April, 1999. The petitioner has taken the plea of violation of principles of natural justice by such authority in coming to a conclusion for removing the petitioner from the service. According to the petitioner this is not the first invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the Court by him. At each and every stage he faced certain difficulties and was forced to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. In one of such writ petition being W.P. No. 2046/95 under which Ajoy Nath Ray, J. was pleased to quash the punishment of the petitioner by dismissal from the service by considering various aspects of the matter under His Lordship's order dated 12th March, 1997.
(2.) Again for violation of principles of natural justice the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction under W.P. No. 1330/97 when S.B. Sinha, J. under an order dated 28th October, 1998 pleased to hold that when an authority refused to accept the recommendation of the enquiry officer on a question it has to follow the appropriate Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, specifically as per Rule 26.2 therein, which reads as follows : "The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority on any articles of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings of such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose." After obtaining such order the respondent authority under the letter of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director dated 13th April, 1999 stated as follows : "I, Ashim K. Mukherjee, the Disciplinary Authority, am unable to make myself agree wholly with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges, to which I had given careful consideration with proper application of mind, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, but before I differ from the said findings, I hereby give you an opportunity to main personal representation for you to defend yourself against the charges levelled against you and for such personal representation, you are requested to call on me at my office at 1, Shakespeare Sarani (8th Floor), Calcutta-700071 on 17th April, 1999 at 3.00 P.M. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on 9.4.1999 and in view of my other unavoidable commitments it will not be possible for me to postpone your personal hearing to some other date, please, therefore, make it convenient to call on me at my office on the said date and time. In case, you fail to come to my aforesaid office on the said date and time, I shall have no other alternative but to decide the matter exparte." A little explanation is required hereunder that the authority concerned cleverly by-passed the issue. It is to be remembered that when court directs to do certain thing to an administrative authority it is duty incumbent upon him to give proper weightage to it instead of making a casually response to it. The court was inclined to direct such officer to discharge certain duties and responsibilities about the cause of removal from the service. It is to be remembered that each case has its own factual background supported by documentary and oral evidences. Under normal circumstances an enquiry officer gives his/her finding based on evidences. Evidences can only be turned down by way of counter evidences on the part of the management. Even before the enquiry officer the evidences and counter- evidence were considered. The enquiry Officer accepted the evidence of the employee and rejected the evidences of the employer. Therefore, if the disciplinary authority want to turn down the finding of the enquiry officer it will in effect turn down the evidential value on which the report of the enquiry officer based. Therefore, whenever the disciplinary authority want to turn down it should not be done lightly so that it can be presumed that the entire disciplinary proceeding has been frustrated.
(3.) Employer and employee relation is the touch stone of the service jurisprudence. If any of the parties goes against such thought, it will ultimately affect the civilisation to a great extent. Therefore, factually the Chairman-cum-Managing Director cannot behave in casual manner in considering representation of the petitioner. He has to jot down the points by giving various questionaries to the employee and ask answers to verify the test of reasonableness as to why he is inclined to go against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Otherwise it will become an illegal action by the management against an employee dehorse the finding. I add hereunder that it is very easy to accept the finding of the enquiry officer but it is very difficult to reject the finding of the enquiry officer. Therefore, in coming to such decision active participation of the employee in the process of taking final decision is essential part of the same.;