Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee,J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner who was a driver employed in Burnpur Works under the respondent Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. prays for quashing the impugned final order of discharge dated November 15, 1990 issued by the Executive Director (Works) of the respondent Company and also prays for reinstatement in service. The petitioner joined the service in the said Company in July, 1982 as a helper to driver and was thereafter appointed as driver. A charge sheet dated June 8, 1989 was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager which is Annexure B to the writ petition. The allegation in the charge sheet is that on June 5, 1989 in D shift the petitioner was assigned to drive truck No.WMH 6238 for Power Engineering Department and at about 12.35 p.m. on that date while he was taking out the said truck unauthorisedly through New Gate he was stopped by Security staff for checking and on' checking, nine pieces of billets and some steel pieces were found in the said truck which the petitioner was taking out stealthily. It was also stated in the charge- sheet that the acts of the petitioner mentioned therein amounted to misconduct in accordance with clauses Nos.25(iii), (viii) and (xi) of the certified Standing Orders of Burnpur Works. It may be noted here that Clause 25 (iii) includes theft in respect of Company's property, Clause 25 (viii) includes neglect or negligence of duty and Clause 25(xi) includes any act subversive of discipline. The petitioner was asked to explain in writing within seven days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the above noted charge. The petitioner thereafter submitted explanation and then a disciplinary enquiry was held by the enquiry officer appointed for the purpose. In the enquiry witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and they were also cross-examined on behalf of the charge sheeted employee, namely, the petitioner and the petitioner took the assistance of a co-worker for helping him in the enquiry. The petitioner also examined himself in the enquiry. The enquiry officer after completing the enquiry submitted his report and thereafter the Executive Director (Works) issued the second show cause notice dated July 11, 1990 Annexure C to the writ petition recording therein that he had carefully gone through the relevant papers in connection with the case as well as the enquiry proceedings and the findings of the enquiry officer and had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been established beyond doubt, and proposed to impose the punishment of discharge from service and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. Thereafter the petitioner asked for copies of the proceedings, findings of the enquiry officer, FIR, theft report and report on which charge sheet was issued. The petitioner's grievance is that only the copies of the proceedings and the findings of the enquiry officer were supplied to him. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated October 19, 1990 Annexure G to the writ petition in response to the second show cause notice issued to him. Subsequently the Executive Director (Works), as already noted, after considering the matter including the show cause reply of the petitioner issued the impugned order dated November 15, 1990 discharging the petitioner from the service. It is inter alia stated in the said discharge order, Annexure H to the writ petition, that there is no extenuating circumstance calling for any lesser punishment, and since the charges proved against the petitioner were serious in nature he was discharged from the service of the Company with immediate effect. Thereafter the petitioner moved this writ petition challenging his discharge from the services of the Company.
(2.) Various pleas have been taken by the petitioner, such as, that the charges are vague, the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the charge sheet, no theft report was there, no case was reported to the police against the petitioner nor was any copy of paper supplied to the petitioner before holding the enquiry, etc. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry was not concluded within the prescribed period of three months as required by clause (i) of the Standing Order No.27(ii). It is also contended by the petitioner that in awarding the impugned punishment the authority concerned did not take into consideration the previous record of the petitioner as required by clause (g) of the said Standing Order No.27(ii). It is further con tended by the petitioner that the findings arrived by the enquiry officer are also not sustained by the evidence. The clause (i) of Standing Order No. 27(ii) reads thus: "27(ii)(i) The proceedings of the enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months. Provided that the period of three months may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by such further period as may be deemed necessary by the enquiry officer."
(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in this case the enquiry was not concluded within three months nor did the enquiry officer record any reason to justify any extension of the period beyond three months for completion of the enquiry and as such the enquiry itself including the report submitted and the actions taken thereon culminating in the discharge of the petitioner are all bad in law. It is on the other hand submitted on behalf of the respondents that the enquiry proceedings had to be adjourned for reasons of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot take advantage of that. However it is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the enquiry was completed within the prescribed period. From the records it appears that the first sitting of the enquiry was held on July 26, 1989 and on that day the petitioner himself took adjournment. The date for the second sitting was August 10, 1989 but on that date neither the petitioner nor any one on behalf of the department was present. In the third sitting on August 19, 1989 both parties however appeared. The fourth sitting was held on September 12, 1989, the fifth sitting on September 20, 1989 and the sixth and final sitting on October 3, 1989. Standing Order No.27(ii)(a) says that where an employee is charged with an offence which may lead to the imposition of the major penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations against him and shall be given an opportunity to make representation within a period of not less than seven days and 'on receipt of the employee's explanation, where the allegations are denied by him, an enquiry shall be held by an officer or officers nominated by the management' . So an enquiry has to be held only when the concerned employee denies the allegations in his representation. Evidently therefore the enquiry and for that matter, the proceedings of the enquiry relate to the stage subsequent to the submission of the explanation in response to the charge sheet. In view of the language of the Standing Orders of Burnpur Works it therefore cannot be said that the proceedings of the enquiry commenced on and from the date of issuance of the charge sheet. As we have seen in this case the proceedings of the enquiry commenced when the first sitting of the enquiry was held on July 26, 1989 and the period of three months for completion of the proceeding of the enquiry has to be reckoned from that date. The petitioner also has categorically stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the domestic enquiry started on and from July 26, 1989 for enquiring into the alleged charge of misconduct. Since the starting point of the proceedings of the enquiry is July 26, 1989 and the last sitting of the enquiry proceedings was held on October 3, 1989, it is therefore evident that the enquiry proceedings had been completed within the prescribed period of three months. That being so, the contention of the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings had not been completed within the prescribed, period is misconceived.;