PINAKI DAS Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the appointment of an Inquiry Officer from outside the respondent Corporation, to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, on the ground that, the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) does not provide for the same, seeks a mandamus to set aside the said appointment, as also the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner who is serving as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent Corporation, it is alleged, had shown unruly and rude behaviour towards his Superior Officer, for which disciplinary proceedings had been drawn up against him, as per the CDA Rules, whereafter, a Memorandum of Charges and Statement of Imputation of Misconduct dtd. 6/10/2021 was served upon him. Prior to the institution of departmental proceedings, the respondent Corporation on the said allegation had on 12/5/2021, appointed a one man inquiry, which was conducted by a Director (Technical) who had given a report to the disciplinary authority, which went against the petitioner. As it appeared that, he was not given adequate opportunity, another inquiry committee comprising of 3 Executive Directors, to ascertain the culpability of the petitioner was constituted. On the basis of the report of the inquiry team, the aforementioned Memorandum of Charges was issued.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter, gave a detailed reply to the disciplinary authority denying of charges, but however, after a gap of 9 (nine) months, vide office order No. 162 dtd. 12/7/2022, another Inquiry Officer namely Shri. Pradip Pujari, Retired Superintendent of Police, Assam, was appointed. The petitioner by his own statements, cooperated with the said inquiry, but it appears on coming to learn that the earlier inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry team, was biased and prepared in haste and further that, the CDA Rules stipulated that an Officer to conduct a disciplinary inquiry against the employees of the Corporation should be appointed from amongst the officers of Corporation, then raised objections before the respondents. The objection of the petitioner was based on Rule 29.2, which provided that a disciplinary authority, may itself inquire, or appoint any officers of Corporation to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner therefore, resisted the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, by maintaining that the Inquiry Officer not being an employee of the Corporation, was incompetent and lacked jurisdiction.