Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) the six writ petitioners are the appellants before us. The appeal was filed against a judgment dated february 2, 2001 whereby a learned judge of this court dismissed the appellants' writ petition being civil order no. 948(w) of 1993. All the appellants are employees of haldia division of hindustan fertilizer corporation limited (hereafter referred to as 'the respondent corporation') located in midnapore district of the state of west bengal. Six separate charge-sheets all dated september 28, 1991, containing substantially identical allegations, were issued by the respondent corporation against appellants. The allegations made in the charge sheet issued against the appellant no. 1 are reproduced below: "it has been reported that sri tapan sikdar, sr. Operator, c/e no.431/ 2120, production department hfcl, haldia division has committed following acts of misconduct in terms of. Standing orders, 1982 of hfc ltd., haldia division. 1. Sri tapan sikdar, senior operator, production department went to the hfc hospital along with others in a group which is situated in the township and forcibly entered the chamber of dr. B.k.s. azad, senior medical officer when he was on duty. He assaulted dr. Azad, senior medical officer and instigated others to do the same. Dr. Azad, senior medical officer was subjected to physical assault and filthy abuses. Sri tapan sikdar, senior operator created the violent scene in the hospital thereby endangering the very life of dr. B.k.s. azad, senior medical officer and other hospital staff/patients. 2. Sri tapan sikdar, senior operator assaulted dr. B.k.s. azad, senior medical officer on the alleged incident of molestation of one smt. Bani marik, wife of sri g.c.marik, tech. Gr. (uss) in the morning about 10 am on august 31, 1991. It has also been reported that sri marik, husband of the said lady had already lodged a fir with haldia police station against dr. B.k.s. azad, senior medical officer for the said alleged misbehaviour with the lady. Hfc management for haldia division has not received any written complaint from the said lady. Even the husband of the said lady viz. Sri g.c.marik did not give any written complaint either to general manager or chief medical officer till 6.00 p.m. of august 31, 1991. 3. Even other doctors of the hospital and two employees (at the hospital) who tried to pacify the situation were also abused and threatened which amounts to indecent behaviour. 4. When dr. K.k. maity, dy. Cmo, entered the room of dr. Azad, sr. Mo and asked the unruly employees and dr. Azad, senior medical officer to come to his (dr. Maity's chamber), it was noticed that sri tapan sikdar, senior operator was pulling dr. B.k.s. azad, senior medical officer by his hand from one side of the room causing personal injury to dr. Azad, senior medical officer. When dr. Azad was going to the chamber of dy. Cmo he also abused in most unparliamentary utterances/gestures and filthy languages with the intention to cause personal injury to dr. Azad, sr. Mo besides humiliation. 5. Sri tapan sikdar, sr.optr. By taking the law in his hand and personally assaulting dr. Azad, senior medical officer while on duty, ransacking his chamber and causing serious disruption in the normal functioning of the hospital, has committed a gross misconduct which amounts to subversive of discipline. His above wrongful acts thus constitute a gross misconduct in terms of the standing orders, 1982 of hfcl, haldia division."
(2.) on the basis of similar allegations similar charges were framed against the appellants, who pleaded not guilty. A departmental enquiry was directed. On november 9, 1991 the manager (co-ordination) of cplo was appointed as the enquiry officer. Before he could complete the enquiry he retired from service on april 30, 1992. Then on october 19, 1992 the respondent corporation's chief manager (t&c) was appointed the new enquiry officer.
(3.) the enquiry was conducted during the period from october 17, 1991 to december 4, 1992. The charged workmen participated with their defence assistants. The management examined 8 (eight) witnesses and exhibited 14 (fourteen) documents. The witnesses were cross examined. The workmen gave a list of 106 (one hundred and six) defence witnesses. The number was later on reduced to 69 (sixty nine). Out of said 69 defence witnesses 11 (eleven) were outsiders, 21 (twenty one) were wives of employees of the respondent corporation, and remaining 37 (thirty seven) were employees of respondent corporation. The enquiry officer decided not to allow examination-in-chief and cross-examination of those defence witnesses, who were not employees of the corporation; but directed that written statements, if any, filed by them would be taken into consideration by him.;