Anil Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) This appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated February 18, 1974, passed by a learned single judge of this court dismissing a writ petition which was registered as Civil Rule No. 6434 (w) of 1969. The principal point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, where two persons had faced a joint disciplinary enquiry, use of tho statement of one for corroboration of evidence against the other which constitutes breech of the principles of natural justice. It would be necessary to refer to the facts which may be set out shortly as follows :
(2.) Respondent No. 3, Deoraj Rai with his helper Sitaram was working on a shearing machine at the appellant's works on January 5, 1968. It is alleged that owing to their gross negligence and carelessness in the performance of their duties they wrongly sheared 28 pieces which were totally rejected and as a result the appellant-company suffered financial losses. The matter was also not reported to the department-in-charge or any other superior authority by Deoraj, respondent No 3 but was detected by the foreman after 6 p. m. on a report by Sitaram. On those allegations Deoraj was served with a charge sheet for a major misdemeanour dated January 9, 1968, on charge of (i) gross negligence of work, (ii) wilful and serious defect in workmanship, (iii) irresponsible action resulting in damage to the goods and (iv) failure to report at once to the foreman or supervisor or manager any defect noticed. On January 10, 1968, Deoraj submitted an explanation denying the charges. He took the defence that on January 5, 1968, while working on the shearing machine he reported defects to the supervisor who rectified the same and adjusted the gauge and after that he carried on the work of shearing on the gauge so adjusted. It was further pleaded that the charges were malafide and were drawn up with an ulterior motive to victimise him. There is no dispute that similar charges were framed against his helper Sitaram and both faced a joint disciplinary enquiry which was directed by the appellant when the appellant was not satisfied with the explanations furnished. One Mr. H. Pal, not associated with the appellant-company in any manner, was appointed the enquiry officer.
(3.) The enquiry was held on January 27, 1968 obviously in the presence of both Deoraj and Sitaram. Two of the supervisors on duty at the works upto 6 p.m. on January 5, 1968, namely M. R. Talukdar and Satyajit Mazumdar were examined along with the foreman B. N. Rai on behalf of the appellant in support of the charges. These three witnesses on their own evidence fully established the charges including the charge of gross neglect resulting in wrong shearing of 28 pieces and their rejection. Such evidence and in particular the evidence of the foreman disproved the defence of Deoraj that wrong shearing was due to any defect in the machine. It would appear further from the evidence of this foreman B.N. Rai that when asked by him Deoraj failed to furnish any explanation for the wrong shearing at that time while Sitaram in furnishing the reason stated in the presence of Deoraj that he was asked by Deoraj to complete the scheduled work quickly so that they could take more rest afterwards in spite of the fact that Sitaram pointed out that that may lead to mistakes.;