In Domestic Enquiries Strict Rules Of Evidence Is Not Required To Be Followed: Calcutta HC [Read Judgement]

The petitioner herein is a bus conductor employed with the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (CSTC). The vehicle in which the petitioner was performing his duty was checked by the checking squad. The conductor cash bag of the petitioner was checked and an amount of Rs. 398/- was detected as excess of the sale proceeds of the tickets. And the petitioner failed to account for the said excess amount of cash in his bag.

The Depot Manager later issued an order of suspension upon him. The petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and he was directed to deposit his identity card in the office. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written statement either admitting or denying the charges alleged him. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet saying, though he mentioned that the allegation levelled against him was false he however, admitted that an amount of Rs. 400/- was with him when the checking squad checked his bag and it was with him for purchasing medicines.

The Senior Disciple Officer of the CSTC intimated the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has appointed a discipline officer of CSTC as an inquiry officer and the head clerk of the Central Discipline Section as Presenting Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on the ground that the charge sheet served upon the petitioner was defective and vague. The petitioner prayed for setting aside the suspension order as well as the charge sheet.

The petitioner however participated in the disciplinary proceeding without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition a final order of punishment was passed against him. The petitioner thus filed an interlocutory application incorporating subsequent facts and documents on record.

Subsequently, the Deputy Managing DIrector, (CSTC) issued an order the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the initial stage in the timescale of pay of conductor with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. And also, the petitioner was warned that in case of recurrence of such offence in future he may make himself liable for severe disciplinary action, including termination of service.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the imposition of penalty against him and also the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a defective charge sheet. The petitioner further pointed out that there are glaring discrepancies between the suspension order and the charge sheet issued against him. He further aggrieved that the checking squad consisted of a member who is not an employee of the CSTC and an outsider is not authorised to join the checking squad. The petitioner alleged violation of natural justice. The petitioner further alleged that the officer acted in a biased manner by compelling him to sign on pre-written documents. And also alleged that he was not present at the time of recording the evidence of the management witnesses and accordingly there has been an infraction in the principle of natural justice. And prayed for setting aside the disciplinary proceeding culminating in the order of punishment.

The respondents vociferously opposed the prayer of the petitioner contenting that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate forum and that the instant writ petition ought not to be entertained by the court. The respondent further added that the petitioner himself admitted in his charge sheet that the said money was held by him in excess of the sale proceeds of the tickets, is a clear case of admission of guilt. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner is a repeated offender since was charged with similar offences on earlier occasions and also that the checking squad consisted of the employees of the CSTC and no outsider was a part of the said squad.

The respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition by saying that the petitioner had admitted the guilt he intentionally did not avail the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses.

The court said that as long as there is some evidence in support of the charges, the disciplinary authority can act on the basis of the same. The court further added, in the case at hand, the evidence lies heavily against the petitioner and that there does not appear to be any apparent illegality in conducting the disciplinary proceeding and also that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner does not shock the conscience of the court and does not call for any interference. The court went on by saying that the petitioner has failed to establish either mala fide or bias in the conduct of the respondents. The petitioner has miserably failed to show that he suffered due to any conduct of the respondents.

While dismissing the writ petition, the court also mentioned about the submission of the respondent as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is well taken. The court said

" Keeping in view the consistent stand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that availability of an alternative remedy will not be a complete bar in entertaining writ petition alleging violation of the principle of natural justice and when the principle allegation of the petitioner was that the action of the respondent was contrary to the said principle the Court thought it fit to hear the petition and decide it on merits. But upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of records it appears that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself which the petitioner failed to do. There is hardly any instance of violation of the said principle. On the contrary, the petitioner is trying to make out an issue by raising unsubstantiated claims. As the Court has already come to a considered opinion that the principle allegations of the petitioner are not tenable, accordingly, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh decision in the matter will amount to sheer wastage of productive working hours. The appellate authority will not be in a position to revisit the issue when the Court has expressed opinion and decided the matter on merits."

Hence, the court rejected the prayer of the respondents for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

Case Details:
Title: ManikLal Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: W.P. No. 77 of 2019
Quorum: Justice Amrita Sinha
Appearances: Adv. Debdutta Basu ( for the petitioner);
Senior Adv. Amal Kr & Adv. Mr, Sabyasachi Mondal (for the CSTC);
Senior Govt. Advocates Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya & Adv Suvendu Roychowdhury (for the State)

Click here to download the Judgment