IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute between the appellant and its workmen with respect to the dismissal of one Akhileshwar Prasad, Akhileshwar Prasad was responsible for the maintenance of leave registers. In December, 1957 he was charged with regard to his willfully omitting to make entries in respect of the annual leave, sick leave and casual leave taken by him during the period from January 1, 1957 to September 28, 1957. He was also charged with altering and overwriting without the appellant's knowledge entries relating to 1957 leave and leave carried forward from the previous year 1956 in respect of certain other employees, thereby intentionally causing wrongful gain to himself and to other clerks. The last charge was with respect to his neglecting the duty of keeping in safe custody the leave register for 1956 which was missing. Akhileshwar Prasad denied his responsibility with respect to these charges and consequently an inquiry was made against him.

(2.) Under the Standing orders of the appellant an elaborate procedure is provided for inquiries into charges of misconduct like the present. The charge has to be read out to the employee and all witnesses in support of the charge are to be examined in his presence unless he deliberately absents himself, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee charged is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses if he declines to do so a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee has liberty to produce such wit-nessesas he wishes, unless he refuses to do so, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. After the evidence is over, the branch manager has to make a brief appraisal of the evidence recorded and has to record his conclusion, and the punishment if any intended to be imposed by him in writing. In doing so he has to take into consideration the service record of the employee concerned and has to record what such employee has to say against the intended punishment. He then passes the order of punishment in writing recording the misconduct proved and the punishment imposed in the service record of the employee concerned.

(3.) The main contention on behalf of the respondents was that the procedure prescribed for an inquiry was not followed and therefore the dismissal of Akhileshwar Prasad was invalid. It appears from the record of the inquiry proceeding that after two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant there was a dispute as to the cross-examination of the second witness. In consequence of this Akhileshwar Prasad declined to cross-examine the second witness further and withdrew from the inquiry. Thereafter it seems that the inquiry was closed and the branch manager passed the following order against Akhileshwar Prasad.:-