Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/54 vs Pankaj Boro on 27 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/54
GAHC010168452024
2025:GAU-AS:6723
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/284/2024
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD AND 3 ORS
A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
122-A, G S ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM
781005
2: THE CHAIRMAN
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
122-A
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781005
3: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
122-A
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781005
4: THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
SITE OFFICE
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 785699
5: THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
SITE OFFICE
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 78569
VERSUS
PANKAJ BORO
S/O SRI MAHENDRA NATH BORO
Page No.# 2/54
QUARTER NO. CHANDRIKA 54, NRL TOWNSHIP, PO NRP, DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 785699
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M GOGOI, MR. U HAZARIKA,MR. N DEKA,MR S
BAISHYA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A SANDILYA, G. GOSWAMI,MS B CHOUDHURY,FOR
CAVEATOR
Linked Case : WA/283/2024
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD AND 3 ORS
A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
122-A
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781005
2: THE CHAIRMAN
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
122-A
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781005
3: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
122-A
G S ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781005
4: THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
SITE OFFICE
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 785699
5: THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (HR)
SITE OFFICE
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 785699
VERSUS
DIGANTA HALOI
SRI PARAMA NANDA HALOI
Page No.# 3/54
RESIDENT OF TEZPUR LAW COLLEGE ROAD
TEZPUR
ASSAM 784001
------------
Advocate for : MR. M GOGOI
Advocate for : MR. P MAHANTA appearing for DIGANTA HALOI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
JUDGMENT
Date : 27-05-2025
[Kardak Ete, J.]
Heard Mr. U. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Deka,
learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent in WA
No.283/2024 and Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent in WA
No.284/2024.
2. These 2 (two) writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and
order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.7682/2016 and WP(C) No.6151/2016, wherein the learned Single Judge has
allowed the writ petitions by holding that the enquiry proceedings, conducted
against the petitioners was completely dehors the law in respect of Section 65A
and Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the law laid down by the Apex
Court as well as to the procedure prescribed under the Rules, thereby set aside
the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority
Page No.# 4/54
and directed for reinstatement of the petitioners in the service with all service
benefits accruable from the date they were held to be removed from service
with 50% of their back wages/salary.
3. The facts of the case are that consequent to the fire accident in the
Numaligarh Refinery Limited, the appellants NRL herein, leading to damage of
certain articles, the appellants NRL have decided to auction the said
damaged/scrapped materials in two lots, comprises of ferrous and non-ferrous
scrap items and burnt cables. On being awarded pursuant to an e-auction, M/s
Steelex (India) Ltd., on 15.03.2014, loaded the scrap materials in three different
trucks within the premises of the appellant NRL. A complaint was lodged by few
local journalists and members of Student bodies of Golaghat alleging that in the
name of scrap, useful materials of the refinery were taken out. On the basis of
the said complaint, the police seized the trucks on the same day. The concerned
Officer-in-Charge of the local police out post addressed to the in-charge of the
appellant NRL to depute an officer for verifying the materials, on which a
General Manager (Commercial) of the appellant was deputed to the Police
Station.
4. The Chief Manager (Commercial) upon verification of these materials
submitted a report on 20.03.2014 to the higher authorities of appellant NRL. In
the report it was stated that these three trucks were brought inside the Refinery
premises and the goods, which were loaded on the trucks were unloaded with
the help of cranes and labourers for due examination and verification. These
trucks were examined in the presence of Police, a Magistrate, two employees of
the ASEB and 8 (eight) persons representing the complainants. The materials in
2 (two) trucks were certified to be scrap materials by the technical persons of
Page No.# 5/54
the Refinery. However, in respect of a third truck 2 (two) coils of cables of quite
large dimension were seen and the complainants insisted that they were new
cables. These 2 (two) coils of cables were inspected on the truck by the Police,
the Magistrate and the technical persons of the appellant NRL along with the
complainants. The Magistrate ordered for sealing of these cables for further
testing. The drivers of the trucks were asked by the Magistrate and the Police to
show the locations within the refinery from where the materials were loaded
and accordingly, it was pointed out by the driver of the third vehicle that the
location was within the premises of a Warehouse from where, these 2 (two)
rolls of cables were loaded. It was also pointed out that these materials were
loaded by a crane in the presence of representative of appellant and CISF
personnel. Thereafter 3 members committee was constituted. A report was
submitted on 02.04.2014 to the higher Authorities which reflects that prima
facie there appears to be involvement of officers of NRL Warehouse, which
needs to be investigated in detail.
5. On the basis of the said report, the respondent/writ petitioners, who were at
the relevant point of time employed as an Assistant Manager and Senior
Manager (Materials) respectively, were placed under suspension pending
departmental enquiry. Thereafter, memorandums were issued and the charges
were framed against the respondents/writ petitioners alleging misconduct to
which they submitted their replies. The Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer
were appointed and the enquiry commenced. There were 5 (five) charges
brought against respondent in WA. No. 283/2024 and 6 (six) charges brought
against respondent in WA No. 284/004.
6. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 20.03.2015 to the Disciplinary
Page No.# 6/54
Authority. Out of the 5 (five) charges against respondent in WA. No. 283/2024,
4 (four) were held to be partially proved and the 5th charge was held to be
proved. Against the respondent in WA. No. 284/2024, out of the 6 (six) charges,
charge Nos. 1, 2 and 5 stood proved, charge Nos. 3, 4 and 6 stood partially
proved. In the enquiry report it was mentioned that the Presenting Officer in his
summary or reference of evidences of imputation of misconduct in support of
the articles of charges had referred to photographs of cables taken on the truck
subsequently while the truck was under police custody. However, such
availability of photographs were not disclosed by the Presenting Officer during
the mutually agreed period of discloser of documents by the Presenting Officer
and defendants nor did he furnish any such photographs before the Enquiry
Officer. The Disciplinary Authority vide dated 08.06.2015, directed the Inquiry
Officer to conduct further enquiry on the basis of a DVD containing soft copy of
total 20 numbers of video clips and 6 numbers of still images/photographs
furnished by the Presenting Officer. On the basis of such direction by the
Disciplinary Authority, further enquiry was initiated in respect of Charge No.4
brought against respondent in WA. No. 283/2024 and charge No. 6 against
respondent WA. No. 284/2024 on the basis of the DVD containing soft copies of
the video clips and still photographs of the cables. The report of further enquiry
was submitted on 08.07.2015 with a finding that Charges against respondents
stood proved.
7. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings arrived at by the
Inquiry Officer vide order dated 13.10.2015 imposed a penalty of removal from
services which shall not be disqualification for future employment against both
the respondents/writ petitioners. Departmental appeals before the Appellate
Authority were filed and by an order dated 26.01.2016 the penalty imposed was
Page No.# 7/54
modified to that of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, further appeals came to
be dismissed affirming the penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority. Being
aggrieved, the respondents/writ petitioners approached this court being WP(C)
6151/2016 and WP(C) 7682/2016.
8. The learned Single Judge, on detail consideration of the materials including
the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the relevant provisions
of law and Rules, by the impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2024
allowed and disposed of the writ petitions (supra) which is reproduced herein
under:
“26. The enquiry which was initially conducted in respect of the writ petitioners
resulted in an enquiry report, where charges Nos.1 to 4 were found to be partially
proved and Charge No.5 to be proved in respect of the writ petitioner in
WP(C)/7682/2016 (Sri Diganta Haloi) and in so far as WP(C)/6151/2016 (Sri Pankaj
Boro) is concerned, the findings in respect of Charges Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were found to
be proved and Charges No. 3 , 4 and 6 were found to be partially proved. What
penalty would have entailed on these findings to be imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority was not arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the enquiry
report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. However, under the provisions of Rule 6 (21)
of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, a further enquiry was conducted on the basis of the
materials which were available on a DVD comprising of 20 numbers of video clips and
6 numbers of still images or photographs. Upon such directions of the Disciplinary
Authority, the further enquiry was conducted and thereupon the Enquiry Officer
returned a finding that Charge No.4 in respect of the writ petitioner, Sri Diganta Haloi,
which was earlier found to be partially proved, stood proved and Charge No. 6 in
respect of the writ petitioner, Sri Pankaj Boro, which was earlier partially proved, stood
fully proved. From perusal of materials placed before this Court these video clips and
photographs contained in the DVD is seen to be in the possession of the Presenting
Officer as per the first report of the Enquiry Officer. However, since these DVD
containing the video clips and still photographs were not presented by the Presenting
Officer during the process of exchange of documents, the Enquiry Officer did not
permit the Presenting Officer to present the DVDs. However in view of the specific
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority the further enquiry was conducted and these
DVDs containing the video clips and the still photographs were presented during the
course of further enquiry and on that basis the Charge No. 4 in respect of the writ
petitioner, Sri Diganta Haloi and Charge No. 6 in respect of the writ petitioner, Sri
Pankaj Boro were found to be proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed
Page No.# 8/54a penalty of removal from service without disqualification for further appointment.
27. The question as to how evidence is to be led in a departmental proceeding has
been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in a series of Judgments. It is apposite to
examine the law laid down by the Apex Court in this context.
28. The Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) has held that the departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial
function. The charges leveled against the delinquent Officer must be found to have
been proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. In the context of the
facts of Roop Singh Negi (supra) it was held that the evidence collected during
investigation by the Investigating Officer against the accused by itself could not be
treated to be evidence in disciplinary proceedings. No witness was examined to prove
the said documents. The management witnesses merely presented the documents and
did not prove the contents thereof. The Apex Court further went on to hold, in the
facts of Roop Singh Negi (supra), that the only basic evidence on which reliance was
placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant
before the police. It was held that the on the basis of the contentions of the appellant
therein that he was forced to sign to the said confession as in the police station, the
Apex Court held that the appellant being an employee of the Bank, said confession
should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show
that he had indulged in stealing the Bank Draft Book. Admittedly, there was no direct
evidence and there was no indirect evidence. Referring to earlier precedent rendered,
the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) held that the materials required to be
brought on record pointing out to the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must
be arrived at on some evidence which is legally admissible. The Apex Court held that
the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be strictly applicable in a departmental
proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. It was held in the facts of that case
that the inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer were not supported by any evidence.
The Apex Court held that suspicion as is well known, however high under no
circumstance shall be a substitute for legal proof.
29. Coming to the facts of the present proceedings, the imposition of penalty on the
writ petitioners were on the basis of the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer in the
further enquiry conducted pursuant to the direction of the Disciplinary Authority. The
DVDs containing the video clips and the still photographs were used as materials to
show the purported presence of two separate coils of large dimensions present in the
third truck. What is also noticed from the enquiry report and the other relevant
documents is that these video clips were taken when the lorry or the truck was under
the police custody. What is however not evident from the pleadings available or the
records placed before the Court is the author or the person taking these video clips
and still photographs and as to how these photographs drive home the charge that the
petitioners are guilty of permitting the service provider/H1 bidder of the scraps to take
away these two coils of large dimensions which were not a part of the lot 1 and lot 2.
The records, which are available before the Court does not reflect as to whether these
Page No.# 9/54two coils of large dimensions can be treated to be scrap or useless materials or
whether they were fresh or useable cables. No such finding or report on these two
coils are available or placed before this Court to support the conclusions arrived at by
the Enquiry Officer. Even if the DVDs containing the video clippings and still
photographs are taken on face value, even then there must be some evidence to arrive
at a conclusion that these two coils of large dimensions are not a part of the lots which
were auctioned and that the same were unauthorizedly permitted by the petitioners to
be lifted by the service provider. A reference is made to a purported confession by the
petitioner, Sri Diganta Haloi that these cables were permitted to be lifted by the service
provider in order to compensate him because of a short fall of the total weightage of
the goods to be auctioned as per the auction note. The said confession, however, was
subsequently withdrawn by the writ petitioner on the ground that the same was issued
upon a duress by higher officials of the NRL. Under such circumstances, findings
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the further enquiry, is not based on any material
which are shown to be present in support of the charges brought against the writ
petitioners. Further no material is placed before this Court alternatively nor any cogent
material to suggest that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in his first
enquiry report submitted to the Disciplinary Authority have been accepted to impose
the penalty of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority. What transpires from
the records and the materials placed before the Court is that the imposition of the
punishment of removal from service was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the
findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the subsequent and /or the further enquiry
conducted on the basis of the DVDs supplies as materials.
31. The provisions of the Evidence Act make it abundantly clear that any documents in
electronic form can be considered to be an evidence only if the same is presented in
the manner prescribed under Section 65 (A) and 65(B) of the Evidence Act. The
question with regard to admissibility of electronic record as primary and secondary
evidence was discussed by the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer and Ors.
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473. The Apex Court while examining a matter pertaining to
corrupt practice under the representation of Peoples’ Act had the occasion to consider
the admissibility of electronic record as documentary evidence under the Evidence Act.
The Apex Court held that electronic record produced for inspection of the Court is
documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Any documentary
evidence by way of any electronic record under Evidence Act in view of Section 59 and
65 (A) can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section
65 (B) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Apex Court held that purpose of these provisions
is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form generated by a computer. The very
admissibility of electronic record, which is called as computer output depends on the 4
(four) conditions prescribed under Section 65 (B) (2) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The
Apex Court held that only if electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65
(B) of the Evidence Act, 1872 would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof
and in that situation resort to Section 45 (A) of the Evidence Act, 1872 / opinion of
examiner of electronic evidence can be sought for. It was held that Evidence Act does
not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if
requirements under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act are not complied with as the
Page No.# 10/54
law stands in India. It was held that proof of electronic record is a special provision
introduced by Information Technology Act, 2000 amending various provisions under
the Evidence Act. The vary caption of Section 65 (A) of the Evidence Act read with
Section 59 and 65 (B) of the Evidence Act, thereof is sufficient to hold that special
provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by procedure
prescribed under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act, 1872. That is a complete code in
itself. Being a special law, the general law under Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act
has to yield generaila specialibus non derogent: the special law shall always prevail
over the general law. Hence, Section 63 and Section 65 of the Evidence Act have no
application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record as the same
is wholly governed by Section 65 (A) and Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act. An
electronic record by way of secondary in evidence shall not be admitted in evidence
unless the requirements of Section 65 (B) are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD/VCD
etc., the same shall be accompanied by a certificate in terms of Section 65 (B) of the
Evidence Act obtained at the time of taking the document, without which the
secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record is inadmissible. This Judgment
of the Apex Court subsequently came to be reconsidered again by the Apex Court in
Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal and Ors. reported in (2020)
7 SCC 1. The Apex Court while considering this judgment along with a previous
judgment of the Apex Court rendered in SHAFHI Md. Reported in 2018 2 SCC 801 to
the effect that Section 65 (A) and Section 65 (B) are not complete code on the subject
and that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65 (B) (4) being procedural can
be relaxed by Court, wherever the interest of justice show justifies, was overruled and
the Judgment of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) was upheld with the clarification
in the last sentence of paragraph 24 of the judgment rendered in Anvar P.V. (supra).
32. Under such circumstances, it is now no longer res integra that documents in
electronic form if required to be proved must be in the procedure prescribed under
Section 65 (A) and Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act, 1872. Juxtaposed with the law
laid down by the Apex Court, the facts in the present proceedings revealed that no
such requirement of law under Section 65 (A) and 65 (B) of the Evidence Act was
followed by the respondent authorities during the further enquiry conducted in respect
of Charge no. 4 in so far as Sri Diganta Haloi is concerned and Charge No. 6 in so far
as Sri Pankaj Boro is concerned by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the DVDs
presented by the Presenting Officer as per the direction of the Disciplinary Authority.
There is no material to suggest that a certificate of the author as required under
Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act was brought in evidence and proved nor are there
any materials to suggest that the author was examined in person, during the further
hearing conducted.
33. Under such circumstances and in view of the law clearly stated as above, the DVDs
containing the video clips and the still photographs, which were the basis of further
enquiry cannot be considered to have been proved in evidence as per the procedure
prescribed under Section 65 (A) and Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act read with the
findings of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) followed in the subsequent Judgment
of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar (supra) as discussed above. That being the position, it will
Page No.# 11/54
have to be held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the further enquiry
conducted in respect of the DVDs are not sustainable in law. The contents of the DVD
cannot be held to have been proved in evidence which is acceptable in law as per the
procedure prescribed under Section 65 (A) and 65 (B) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Consequently, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the further enquiry are
held to be based on no evidence. The further consequence of this finding is that the
decisions of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of removal from service,
which will not be a disqualification for further employment is also held to be a decision
which is not permissible in law as the same was imposed on the
findings/recommendations of the Enquiry Officer in the further enquiry. No
independent view of the Disciplinary Authority is discernable from the impugned order.
The enquiry report dated 08.07.2015 of the Enquiry Officer pursuant to the further
enquiry conducted is held to be non-est in law. The impugned order of penalty
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which is based on the findings of the Enquiry
Officer pursuant to the further enquiry conducted therefore cannot be held to be
sustainable in law.
34. In so far as the orders of the Appellate Authority is concerned, it is seen that the
Appellate Authority by an order dated 26.01.2016 has modified the imposition of
penalty of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement. As discussed above
the provisions which calls for an order of compulsory retirement are described in detail
under Rule 9 of the said Rules. The criterion for judging medical unfitness, inefficiency
or doubtful integrity of the Management Staff proposed to be prematurely retired are
specified under Rule 9 (2) of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management
Staff. In the context of the present proceedings, there is no dispute that the enquiry
conducted against the writ petitioners were on the charges mentioned in the show-
cause notice, which was enclosed with the memorandum of charges accompanied by
the statement of Article of Charges and the statement of imputation of misconduct in
support of the Articles of Charges. A careful perusal of these documents revealed that
there is no enquiry against the petitioners for compulsory retirement, on the grounds
prescribed under Rule 9 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management
Staff. Rule 9 of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff clearly
prescribes the criterion under which a person can be the compulsory retired. It also
specifically lays down the criteria of age for the staff concerned. The staff must have
attained the age of 50 years. These writ petitions were filed in the year 2016 and on
the date of the filing, none of the writ petitioners were anywhere near the age of 50
years. Under such circumstances, the Appellate Authority could not have modified the
imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority to that of compulsory retirement
without adhering to the criteria and the procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the of
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff. Consequently, the findings
of the Appellate Authority and the second Appellate Authority sustaining the findings of
the first Appellate Authority being contrary to the provisions of the Rules are
consequently interfered with and set aside.
36. In the context of the present proceedings, there is no specific material brought
before this Court to point out the commission and/or the omission of the writ
Page No.# 12/54
petitioners to project that they are violative of the provisions of Rule 1 of part III of
the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff and thereby has
committed misconduct. As discussed, there are 42 instances, which are prescribed
under the heading ‘Misconduct’. The enquiry proceedings conducted does not reflect as
to the specific misconduct alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioners. That
apart, as discussed above, there are primarily 2 (two) grounds, which have been found
to be fully proved against the writ petitioners namely, that both the writ petitioners
conducted the delivery of the auction goods on a Sunday, which is a holiday without
information of the higher officials. And that the DVD contains video clips and still
pictures showing the two cables in the third truck and this truck along with two others
were engaged by the service provider for lifting the auction goods. In so far as the
charge of conducting the delivery of auction goods on a Sunday is concerned, there is
no dispute that these goods were delivered to the service provider in the presence of
CISF personnel and other staff of the NRL, but the conclusions arrived at do not reveal
any specific finding as to how such a conduct will amount to a misconduct as
prescribed under Rule 1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management
Staff. In so far as the further enquiry conducted in respect of the video clips and still
photographs in the DVD are concerned, as discussed above, the same cannot be
accepted to have been proved in evidence in the absence of the failure of the Enquiry
Officer as well as the departmental authorities to follow the procedure prescribed
under Section 65 (A) and Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The findings of the
Enquiry Officer in respect of the other charges, which were found to be partially
proved also does not indicate or correlate with the conclusions arrived as to what
misconduct has been committed and what penalty whether major or minor is required
to be imposed. No such discussion is also discernable from the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as to why the major penalty of removal from service which shall
not be a disqualification for further employment was imposed. No such discussion is
also found in the Appellate Authorities’ order whereby removal from service was
modified to that of compulsory retirement.
37. Under such circumstances and in view of all the discussions above, this Court is of
the considered view that the enquiry proceeding conducted against the writ petitioners
was completely dehors the law in respect of Section 65 A and Section 65 B of the
Evidence act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgments discussed
above and to that extent the procedure prescribed under the Rules. Under such
circumstances and in view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the findings
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority are hereby
interfered with, set aside and quashed. Consequently, the orders passed by the first
Appellate Authority and the second Appellate Authority also stands quashed. The writ
petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service with all service benefits accruable
from the date they were held to be removed from service. In so far as back wages are
concerned, considering that the writ petitioners have been out of service since their
date of removal from service with effect from 25.01.2016 they would be entitled to
50% of their back wages/salary.”
9. Being aggrieved, the appellants NRL have preferred these writ appeals.
Page No.# 13/54
10. Mr. U. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that
the learned Single Judge had erred in law ignoring the most glaring evidence of
misconduct on the part of the respondent, namely, Shri Diganta Haloi,
particularly his version dated 03.04.2014, wherein he stated that cramped
copper cable of 1.5 tonne which was lying in the open yard (OY01) was given to
the successful bidder as compensation for losses suffered by the bidder in
another tender. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the learned
Single Judge overlooked and disregarded the repeated admission of the
respondent Diganta Haloi that he along with the Respondent Pankaj Boro had
given away un-auctioned material (copper coils), to the successful bidder to
compensate it for alleged losses from forfeiture of its EMD in another tender.
The admission implicating the respondents which was in the nature of an
explanation of their conduct was tendered repeatedly by the respondent
Diganta Haloi on different dates. He submits that during enquiry, respondent
Pankaj Boro was confronted with the confession/ admission of Diganta Haloi
implicating him for delivery of un-auctioned goods to the successful bidder.
11. He submits that the Rules grant respondents the right to examine any
witness. Even though respondent Pankaj Boro was aware of the incriminating
statements made by respondent Diganta Haloi against him, he did not make any
attempt to refute, disprove or distance himself from such statements. No
attempt was made to even examine respondent Diganta Haloi to challenge and
discredit the statement made against him. In such circumstances, the
admission/confession of respondent Diganta Haloi will bind the respondent
Pankaj Boro and a finding of guilt can be rendered on the basis of such
statement. He submits that learned Single Judge has erroneously rejected the
admission/confession of respondent Diganta Haloi on the ground that the same
Page No.# 14/54
was retracted by the respondent Diganta Haloi as the alleged retraction was
made in a mechanical manner by alleging duress and pressure of senior officers.
No particular of alleged duress or pressure was furnished nor any witnesses
examined. Bald allegation of duress and coercion is not sufficient to ignore a
confession. If the plea of undue influence or coercion is taken, full particulars
have to be furnished and evidence tendered and as such general allegations are
insufficient.
12. Mr. U. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel submits that retraction is of no
significance as the explanation provided in the confession is corroborated by the
admission of respondent Pankaj Boro that Diganta Haloi had approached him
with a proposal of delivering un-auctioned cable to the successful bidder and
the physical verification of cables which revealed that 685 metres of copper
cable was missing from the OY01.
13. Mr. U. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned
judgment erroneously applies the procedure for premature retirement to that of
compulsory retirement. The finding of the Learned Single Judge equating the
procedure for compulsory retirement with that of premature retirement is
contrary to the Rules, apparent on the ground that the procedure for premature
retirement is set out in Rule 9 whereas the compulsory retirement is listed as
one of the major penalties that can be imposed for misconduct of an employee
and the detailed procedure for imposing major penalties is set out in Rule 6. He
submits that Rule 2(2) sets out the penalties (both major and minor) that can
be imposed for misconduct and Explanation thereto sets out categories which
shall not be considered to be penalty. Explanation (vi) of Rule 2(2) states that
premature retirement will not amount to a penalty.
Page No.# 15/54
14. Mr. U. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel submits that Learned Single Judge
has erroneously rejected DVDs containing still photographs and video clips
evidence, relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, on the ground that the same is not
admissible as the procedure set out under Section 65A and 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 has not been followed. He submits that in domestic enquiry
rules of the Indian Evidence Act may not apply as long as there is some
evidence. The rejection of evidence on the ground that Section 65A and 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act are strictly applicable is contrary to observations in Para
28 of the impugned judgment, where it is stated that the Evidence Act is not
strictly applicable. The enquiry reports dated 20.03.2015 and 08.07.2015, relied
on the admission/ confessional statements made by the respondent Diganta
Haloi. He submits that it is the admitted case of the delinquents that un-
auctioned goods was given away to the successful bidder and therefore the
DVDs tendered during the evidence cannot be questioned or considered to be
inadmissible.
15. On the scope of interference by the court in the disciplinary proceedings,
Mr. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel submits that the High Court is not a court
of appeal under Article 226 over the decision in a departmental enquiry.
Departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole
judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can
be based, the adequacy of reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can
be gone into by the High Court in proceedings under Article 226. He submits
that in the present case, the Learned Single Judge had embarked upon exercise
to determine the correctness of the manner of appreciation of evidence by the
Inquiry Committee. The learned Single Judge went into the issue of adequacy of
evidence by delving into the issue that there is no evidence that the two coils of
Page No.# 16/54
large dimension are part of auctioned goods, whether the same can be treated
as scrap or fresh or useable material, whether the same were unauthorisedly
permitted by the delinquents to be lifted. The Learned Single Judge furthermore
erroneously rejected the evidence of the confession of respondent Diganta Haloi
on the ground that the same was retracted thereby reviewing, reassessing and
rejecting evidence led in and relied upon in the departmental proceedings,
which is not permissible under Article 226.
16. In support of his submissions, Mr. Hazarika, learned senior counsel has
placed reliance largely on the following four judgments:-
1. Bishundeo Narain -vs- Seogeni Rai, reported in 1951 SCC 447.
2. State of Haryana & Anr. -vs- Rattan Singh reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491.
3. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. -vs- Chitra Venkata Rao reported in
(1975) 2 SCC 557.
4. Delhi Transport Corporation -vs- Shyam Lal reported in (2004) 8 SCC 88.
17. On the other hand, Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent in WA No.283/2024 submits that the entire basis of the submissions
advance on behalf of the appellants was the so-called admission made by the
respondent/writ petitioner during the course of the preliminary inquiry. He
submits that it is no longer res integra that any evidence recorded in a
preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry and that a preliminary
inquiry has nothing to do with the inquiry conducted after issuance of charge
sheet. The purported admission so made during the course of preliminary
inquiry was specifically retracted by the respondent/writ petitioner. Even
assuming but not admitting that the so-called admission could have been taken
note of, the same does not have any co-relation with the charges that were
Page No.# 17/54
ultimately framed. Most importantly, the so-called admission never formed the
basis and no finding thereon was recorded in the inquiry reports. Such
argument has been developed by the appellants entirely as an afterthought and
that too at the writ appellate stage and as such, same is liable to be out rightly
rejected.
18. So far as the second inquiry report based on the video clips and
photographs is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
submits that the law in this regard is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has conclusively held that even in a disciplinary proceeding, mere tendering of
documents would not be enough and that the contents thereof are required to
be proved. In the instant case, the videos and photographs were merely
tendered without the contents thereof being proved or certified. He submits that
although the strict laws of evidence may not be applicable, however, the spirit
thereof is required to be followed since not doing so has the potential of leading
to evidence lacking in credibility being passed of to the prejudice of the
delinquent officer. Such being the legal position, the mandate of Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if not in letter, at least in spirit was required to
be followed and the same not having been done the said second inquiry report
dated 08.07.2015 is non-est in the eye of law.
19. Referring to the first inquiry report dated 20.03.2015, Mr. Chowdhury,
learned Senior Counsel, submits that it has been conclusively demonstrated that
there is not even a shred of evidence that could have led a person reasonably
instructed in law to conclude that any of the charges leveled against the
respondent/writ petitioner can be said to have been even remotely established.
It is for this reason that there is no finding recorded whatsoever that any
Page No.# 18/54
material beyond the auction material was lifted by M/s Steelex (India) Ltd. Such
foundational fact itself not having been established and no finding in this regard
having been recorded, it is clearly a case of no evidence, thereby inviting the
interference of this Hon’ble Court. The foundational charge itself having fallen
through, the other incidental charges could not have been sustained in any
manner whatsoever. In view of the above facts and law, the learned Single
Judge has rightly exercised the extra-ordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the
disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there is no merit in these writ appeals and
hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
20. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, in support of his submissions, has
relied on the following judgments:-
1. Satyendra Singh -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 3325.
2. Roop Singh Negi -vs- Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2
SCC 570.
3. Naresh Kumar Gandhi -vs-Cambridge Foundation School reported
in 2023 SCC Online Del 4354.
21. Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent in WA No.284/2024
submits that the decision to auction disposal of ferrous and non ferrous scrap
items and burnt cables in ‘lots’ was taken by a Committee of three members
consisting of the Senior Manager (Elect. Maint.), the Senior Manager (Finance)
and the Senior Manager (Materials), the fact that the auction was in terms of
the relevant prescribed procedures is confirmed by the evidence. She submits
that the work is distributed amongst officials at the NRL warehouse and the
Respondent is not responsible for checking personally the loading and unloading
Page No.# 19/54
of materials as per Office Order dated 12.10.2011 for re-allocation of job
responsibilities of the officers & staffs of warehouse.
22. Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel submits that the respondent was not
present when the materials were loaded as is apparent from the evidence on
record. As evident from the Punch Record of 15.03.2014, the Respondent came
in at 11:29 AM. The evidence of the CISF constable corroborates the fact that
respondent was not present at the time of loading. It mentioned about another
NRL personnel being present at 10:30 AM when the respondent had not entered
the warehouse. Even more significance is the fact that whether there was in fact
a theft of the two cables or not has also not been established.
23. Ms. Goswami, learned counsel, referring to the First Inquiry Report dated
20.03.2015, submits that despite there being no evidence, the Inquiry Officer
has wrongly held the charges either partially proved or proved. She submits that
in relation to the Sixth Charge and the most crucial charge that the respondents
allowed M/s Steelex India to take away two copper coils, the Inquiry officer
relied on an physical verification report by Stores at OY01 dated 09.04.2014 (25
days after the incident happened that is 15.03.2014) to make good that the two
coils found in the 3rd truck matched the description of those found missing in
the NRL stores. For this they relied on photographs of cables taken on the truck
subsequently when the truck was under police custody. As is evident from the
Inquiry report, the Presenting Officer did not disclose the availability of such
photographs during the mutually agreed period of disclosure of documents.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Inquiry officer went on to hold that the
charge is partially proved.
Page No.# 20/54
24. She submits that in view of the fact that the copies of the DVD and
pictures were not handed over to the respondents, the Director NRL on appeal
by the respondent, directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct a further inquiry on
Charge No. 6. Even during the further inquiry proceedings into the Sixth Charge,
the DVD sent could not be opened and despite the objections by the respondent
in relation with the veracity of the video clips and the still images contained in
the DVD, the Inquiry Officer, by way of the Additional Report 29.07.2015, went
on to hold that Sixth Charge stands proved. In view of the above, the Learned
Single Judge has rightly interfered with the disciplinary proceedings and allowed
the writ petitions. Therefore, Ms. Goswami learned counsel submits that there is
no infirmity in the judgment and order of learned single judge and as such
these appeals are liable to be dismissed.
25. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
the materials available on record and also perused the judgment and order
dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned single judge, assailed herein.
26. Consequent to the fire accident that took place at the premises of the
appellants in the year 2013, due to which a substantial amount of scrap
materials comprises of ferrous and non-ferrous metal items including burnt
cables were generated, the management of the appellants decided to put on
auction on “as is where is basis”. The e-auction was held on 17.02.2014,
wherein one M/s. Steelex (India) Ltd was declared as the highest bidder for 2
Lots. Pursuant thereto, the respondent in WA No.283/2024 (Diganta Haloi), who
was serving as Assistant Manager (Commercial), vide letter dated 14.03.2014
submitted a written request to depute a CISF official during the loading of scrap
materials.
Page No.# 21/54
27. On 15.03.2014, three trucks of M/s. Steelex (India) Ltd were allowed to lift
the materials in presence of the CISF personnel besides other laborers involved
in the lifting of the materials. In the meantime, some media persons and a
student organization have lodged a complaint, based on which the three trucks
were seized and brought to the premises of the appellants. A joint inspection
was carried out by some appellant NRL Officers, the Police, a Magistrate and
Officers of the Assam State Electricity Board. The trucks were unloaded. In
respect of the first and second truck, it was opined that the materials were in
fact scrap materials. However, in respect of the third truck, after unloading
almost the whole truck, at the bottom there were, “two coils of cables of quite
large dimensions”. The Magistrate present ordered for sealing of these cables
for further testing which is indicated in the inspection report dated 20.03.2014.
The testing so ordered by the Magistrate was carried out by the experts in
Assam State Electricity Board and the report was submitted on 22.03.2014,
wherein it was stated that the materials are condemned unserviceable cables
and scrap.
28. Thereafter, a 3-Member Committee was constituted for conducting a
preliminary inquiry. The Committee submitted its report on 02.04.2014, wherein
it was recorded that there were serious deficiencies in the system of auction
itself and it was also recorded that respondent Diganta Haloi in WA
No.283/2024 has accepted, particularly against the Question No. 11, wherein he
had stated that copper cable of was given, as jointly decided with the
respondent Pankaj Boro in WA No.284/2024. Thereafter, the vigilance officers
also recorded the statement of the respondent/writ petitioner Diganta Haloi,
wherein a similar statement was alleged to have made and recorded. It is
noticed that when the statement of respondebt Pankaj Boro in WA No.284/2024
Page No.# 22/54
was taken, the statement made by Diganta Haloi, respondent in WA
No.283/2024 was disputed. It also appears that on 09.04.2014, a physical
verification of the store materials was conducted and a chart was prepared,
wherein at Sl. No.24, some LT Power Cable; 3.5C x 300 Sq.mm, Unit of
measurement being meters (M) was found to be missing and the missing
quantity of cables was recorded as 685 meters.
29. On 10.06.2014 the Memorandum/Articles of Charges was issued to the
respondent Shri Diganta Haloi in WA. No.283/2024 accompanied by the
statement of Article of Charges and the statement of imputation of misconduct
in support of the Articles of Charges which consists of five different charges.
Memorandum of charges are extracted herein below:-
1. Shri Diganta Haloi, while functioning as Assist. Manager (Commercial) at NRL
Warehouse, Numaligarh was looking after all activities related to disposal
including scrap besides supervision of receipt and issue of materials in store and
preservation of his supervision. While posted and functioning as Asstt. Manager
Numaligarh, Shri Diganta Haloi, dealt with the disposal of CDU fire damaged it
E-auction ID : 42254 dated 17-02-2014 of CDU/VDU. The fire damaged burnt
cables were kept at the designated Scrap Yard located in North of Road No 6 in
between road no.5 & 7, but Shri Diganta Haloi on 15-03-2014, in connivance
with Shri Pankaj Boro unauthorizedly had allowed M/s Steelex to load 31.95 MT
of cables which was not part of the auction from other areas viz. near the
substation no. 3 open yard 01 and open yard 04.
2. During the said period, Shri Diganta Haloi had raised the “Request for Official
for witness’ on 14-03-2014 where he had mentioned the quantity as
‘Cut/damaged cables 60 MT (approx)’, although the e-auction was held for
CDU/VDU-burnt cables and no weight was taken prior to the e-auction.
Page No.# 23/54
3. Shri Diganta Haloi allowed the lifting of three (3) trucks of material from NRL
premises by the buyer on 15-03-2014, which was not at all from the auctioned
lot.
4. During disposal of the scrap material on 15-03-2014, Shri Diganta Haloi in
connivance with Shri Pankaj Boro had allowed M/s Steelex (India) to take away
2 coils of Copper Cable of length 685 metres with a book value of Rs.16.05
lakhs from the open yard 01 as part of the scrap, which was not part of the
auction.
5. Shri Diganta Haloi in connivance with Shri Pankai Boro had preplanned to
dispose scrap on [5-03-2014 which was an off day in NRL to M/s Steelex (India)
and issue non-auctioned materials as per his convenience by taking advantage
of absence of other staff of the Warehouse.
30. Similarly, the respondent/writ petitioner, Sri Pankaj Boro, was also served
with a memorandum on 10.06.2014 containing the statement of Articles of
Charges framed against the said petitioner along with the statement of
imputation of misconduct and accompanied by the list of documents and
witnesses. Memorandum of charges are extracted below:-
1. Shri Pankaj Boro, while functioning as Sr. Manager (Materials) at NRL
Warehouse was looking after all activities related to Warehouse including
receipt, issue of materials and disposal including scrap besides some unrelated
jobs such as sale of hydrocarbon products such as Sulphur, RPC / CPC Dust
under his supervision. While posted and functioning as Sr. Manager (Materials)
and dealing with the disposal of CDU fire damaged items he did not heed the
advice of his superior viz. DGM (C&L), who had reservations for floating_auction
with quantity as ‘lot’ and advised Shri Pankaj Boro to look into certain difficulties
due to floating auction in ‘lots’. Shri Boro acted upon an e-mail from M/s Steelex(India) and went ahead for accepting their bid for only the 2 nd lot -CDU/VDU
burnt cables, by an approving committee of lower rank as per DOA and did not
Page No.# 24/54inform the earlier committee members including his superiors about the same.
2. Shri Pankaj Boro allowed disposal of scrap on 15-03-2014 which was an
off day in NRL to M/s Steelex (India) in contravention of E-auction terms &
condition without any approval and in absence of any other supporting C, staff
other than Shri Diganta Haloi, Asstt. Manager (Commercial).
3. Shri Pankaj Boro allowed the lifting of three (3) trucks of material from
NRL premises by the buyer on 15-03- 2014, which was not at all from the
auctioned lot.
4. Shri Pankaj Boro did not effectively supervise the activities of his sub
ordinate Shri Diganta Haloi and dependedon him for all facts without any
verification at his end. The materials for the e-auction of CDU/VDU fire
damaged burnt cables were kept at the designated Scrap Yard located in North
of road no6 in between road no.5 & 7 but Shri Boro in connivance with Shri
Haloi had allowed the materials to be loaded from other areas viz. near the sub-
station no. 3, open yard 01 and open yard 04.
5. Shri Pankaj Boro did not raise any objection or check the accuracy on the
‘eye estimation’ of 60 MT made by Shri Haloi to be the weight of the lot
although the auction was held on ‘lot’ and weight of scrap was not taken initially
at the time of approval for disposal of CDU fire damaged items.
6. Shri Pankaj Boro in connivance with Shri Diganta Haloi allowed M/s.
Steelex (India) to. take away 2 coils of Copper Cable of length 68 685 metres
with a book value of Rs. 16.05 lakhs from the open yard 01 as part of the scrap
on 15-03-2014.
31. In response to the Articles of Charges and the statement of imputation of
misconduct in support of the Article of Charges, both the respondents filed their
written statement of defense on 12.07.2014 and 23.07.2014 respectively.
Thereafter, notices of enquiry was issued by the Inquiry Officer on 05.12.2014
and 05.08.2014 directing the respondents/writ petitioner to appear before the
Page No.# 25/54
Enquiry Officer.
32. The appellants proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry wherein as many
as eight (8) witnesses were examined. After conclusion of te proceedings, the
Inquiry Officer submitted the report vide dated 20.03.2015, against Diganta
Haloi (respondent in WA No.283/2024), which is extracted here-in-below:
“INQUIRY FINDINGS AGAINST CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST SHRI DIGANTA
HALOI:
Charges brought against Shri Diganta Haloi are summarized below:
1. Shri Diganta Haloi, while functioning as Assist Manager (Commercial) at NRL
Warehouse, Numaligarh was looking after all activities related to disposal including scrap
besides supervision of receipt and issue of materials in store and preservation of materials etc
under his supervision. While posted and functioning as Asstt Manager (Commercial), NRL,
Numaligarh, Shri Diganta Haloi, dealt with the disposal of CDU fire damaged items for the E-
auction ID 42254 dated 17-02-2014 of CDU/VDU. The fire damaged burnt cables were kept at
the designated Scrap Yard located in North of Road No- 6 in between road no-5 & 7, but Shri
Diganta Haloi on 15-03-2014, in connivance with Shri Pankaj Boro unauthorizedly had
allowed M/s Steelex to load 31.95 MT of cables which was not part of the auction from other
areas viz. near the sub-station no. 3, open yard 01 and open yard 04
2. During the said period, Shri Diganta Haloi had raised the ‘Request for Deputation of
CISF Official for witness’ on 14-03-2014 where he had mentioned the quantity as ‘Cut/damaged
cables 60 MT (approx), although the e-auction was held for CDU/VDU burnt cables and no
weight was taken prior to the e-auction.
3. Shri Diganta Haloi allowed the lifting of three (3) trucks of material from NRL premises
by the buyer on 15-03-2014, which was not at all from the auctioned lot
4. During disposal of the scrap material on 15-03-2014, Shri Diganta Haloi in connivance
with Shri Pankaj Boro had allowed M/s Steelex (India) to take away 2 coils of Copper Cable of
length 685 metres with a book value of Rs 16.05 lakhs from the open yard 01 as part of the
scrap, which was not part of the auction.
5. Shri Diganta Haloi in connivance with Shri Pankaj Boro had preplanned to dispose
scrap on 15-03-2014 which was an off day in NRL to M/s Steelex (India) and issue non-
auctioned materials as per his convenience by taking advantage of absence of other staff of the
Warehouse
The above charges against Shri Diganta Haloi are found prejudicial to the interest of
Numaligarh Refinery Limited which tantamount to the misconduct committed by him within the
meaning of Sub Rule (1), (6) and (20) of Rule 1. Misconduct under Part-III: Discipline and
appeal Rules of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1995 for management staff of
Numaligarh Refinery Limited, as applicable to him:
i) Theft, fraud, forgery, embezzlement, misappropriation, dishonesty in connection with the
business or property of the company or of property of another person within the premises of the
Page No.# 26/54company.
ii) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company
iii) Breach of rules duly notified or violation of procedures laid down in connection with the
company’s business.
Further, he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company and contravened rule
4(a), 4(b) & 4(c) of Rule 4 of part-II. Conduct Rules of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal
Rules, 1995 for management staff of Numaligarh Refinery Limited.
INQUIRY FINDINGS:-
1. Statement of witness by Shri GK Borah, Chief Manager (Projects) taken on
19/01/2015 and by Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance) taken on
09/01/2015 indicate the presence of designated scrap yard for CDU/VDU burnt cables and
formation of a taskforce to deliver the CDU / VDU burnt cables to the designated scrap yard.
However, both of them did not confirm whether Shri Diganta Haloi was communicated about
the designated scrap yard and laskforce meant for the purpose. Shri Diganta Haloi has
admitted that disposal was done from areas viz near the sub-station no. 3 and open yard 04 and
as per his understanding such locations are under the purview of the scrap disposal under
inquiry. In this connection departmental enquiry report dated 02.04.2014 may be referred to. In
his statement of witness of Shri Nakul Bora, General Workmen, taken on 23/01/2015 he stated
that scrap materials are not sealed in one location and various locations were utilized for the
same. The matter of designated scrap yard for CDU / VDU burnt cables and formation of a
taskforce to deliver the CDU/VDU burnt cables to the designated scrap yard was also discussed
and recorded in the MOMs of the relevant CDU/VDU shutdown meetings in which the
participants were from the technical functions No documentary evidence was furnished during
the proceedings specifically identifying the location and existence of a designated scrap yard
and communicating the same to Shri Diganta Haloi.
Shri Diganta Haloi also stated that due to the pressure of the bidder, he jointly with Sr.
Manager (Materials) decided to compensate the bidder by handing over old cramped twisted
copper cable of around 1.5 tonne lying in the OY01 for a long period of time. This, as claimed
by him, was due to wrong information given by Warehouse to the bidder and the bidder was
likely to forfeit EMD amounting to Rs 1.75 lakhs for the 1st lot. The bidder demanded
Warehouse to refund their EMD or compensate their loss of Rs. 1.75 lakhs. However,
subsequently, in his written statement of defense dated 12.07.2014 submitted to Director
(Technical) Shri Diganta Haloi denied this statement saying this was out of mental pressure and
duress of the higher officials.
Statements of 04 Hydra operators / helpers, CISF Constable Pankaj Choudhary, CISF Head
Constable Rajut Borah reveals that Shn Pankaj Boro and Shri Diganta Haloi had allowed the
materials to be loaded from areas viz near the sub-station no 3, open yard 01 and open yard 04.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 1 above against Sri Diganta Haloi stands partially proved.
2. In the Summary of defendant submitted on 06.03.2015, Shri Diganta Haloi,
admitted that as there is a problem with creation of gate passes as LOT for three vehicles,
therefore a rough estimate was considered and accordingly vehicles were weighted and SAP
Page No.# 27/54
transactions were carried out for proportionate quantities This all was done as per direction
and with due intimation of HOD. This was evident from the fact that Gate Passes and Invoices
were authorized by HOD, Shri Pankaj Boro in this case.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 2 above against Sri Diganta Haloi stands proved.
3. Statement of witness by Shri GK Borah, Chief Manager (Projects) taken on 19/01/2015 and
by Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance) taken on 09/01/2015 indicate the
presence of designated scrap yard for CDU/VDU burnt cables and formation of a taskforce to
deliver the CDU / VDU burnt cables to the designated scrap yard. 143 However, both of them
did not confirm whether Shri Diganta Haloi was communicated about the designated scrap
yard and taskforce meant for the purpose. Shri Diganta Haloi has admitted that disposal was
done from areas viz. near the sub-station no. 3 and open yard 04 and as per his understanding
such locations are under the purview of the scrap disposal under inquiry. In this connection
departmental enquiry report dated 02.04.2014 may be referred to. In his statement of witness of
Shri Nakul Bora, General Workmen, taken on 23/01/2015 he stated that scrap materials are not
sealed in one location and various locations were utilized for the same. The matter of
designated scrap yard for CDU /VDU burnt cables and formation of a taskforce to deliver the
CDU/VDU burnt cables to the designated scrap yard was also discussed and recorded in the
MOMs of the relevant CDU/VDU shutdown meetings in which the participants were from the
technical functions. No documentary evidence was furnished during the proceedings
specifically identifying the location and existence of a designated scrap yard and
communicating the same to Shri Diganta Haloi.
Shri Diganta Haloi also stated that due to the pressure of the bidder, he jointly with Sr.
Manager (Materials) decided to compensate the bidder by handing over old cramped twisted
copper cable of around 1.5 tonne lying in the Y01 for a long period of time. This, as claimed by
him, was due to wrong information given by Warehouse to the bidder and the bidder was likely
to forfeit EMD amounting to Rs. 1.75 lakhs for the 1st lot. The bidder demanded Warehouse to
refund their EMD or compensate their loss of Rs. 1.75 lakhs. However, subsequently, in his
written statement of defense dated 12.07.2014 submitted to Director (Technical) Shri Diganta
Haloi denied this statement saying this was out of mental pressure and duress of the higher
officials.
Statements of 04 Hydra operators / helpers, CISF Constable Pankaj Choudhary, CISF Head
Constable Rajut Borah reveals that Shri Pankaj Boro and Shri Diganta Haloi had allowed the
materials to be loaded from areas viz. near the sub-station no. 3, open yard 01 and open yard
04.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 3 above against Sri Diganta Haloi stands partially proved.
4. Shri Diganta Haloi stated that due to the pressure of the bidder, he jointly with Sr. Manager
(Materials) decided to compensate the bidder by handing over old cramped twisted copper
cable of around 1.5 tonne lying in the OY01 for a long period of time. This, as claimed by him
was due to wrong information given by Warehouse to the bidder and the bidder was likely to
forfeit EMD amounting to Rs. 1.75 lakhs for the 1st lot. The bidder demanded Warehouse to
refund their EMD or compensate their loss of Rs. 1.75 lakhs. However, subsequently, in his
written statement of defense dated 12.07.2014 submitted to Director (Technical) Shri Diganta
Haloi denied this statement saying this was out of mental pressure and duress of the higher
Page No.# 28/54
officials.
Statements of 04 Hydra operators / helpers, CISF Constable Pankaj Choudhary, CISF Head
Constable Rajat Borah reveal that Shri Pankaj Boro and Shri Diganta Haloi had allowed
materials to be loaded from open yard 01.
In the physical verification by stores at Open Yard 01 on 09.04.2014, report submitted by Shri
Prabir Talukdar on 11.04.2014 against occurrence of the incident on 15.03.14, it was indicated
that there was shortage of 685 meters Copper Cable with Tag no. E-CA-CU-300-A.
Statement of witness by Shri GK Borah, Chief Manager (Projects) taken on 19/01/2015,144 by
Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance) taken on 09/01/2015, by Shri Prabir
Kumar Talukder, CM (Commercial) laken on 07/01/2015 and Report from SDE, APDCL
Kamargaon Electrical Sub-Division dated 22/03/2014 do not confirm that two coils of Copper
Cable of length 685 metres with a book value of Re: 16.05 lakhs from the open yard 01 were a
part of the scrap disposed on 15-03-2014
Presenting Officer, in his summary of reference of evidence of imputation of misconduct in
support of articles of charges framed against Sri Diganta Haloi, Assist Manager (Commercial),
submitted by him over e-mail on 22/02/2015 along with the Exhibits mentioned therein, and
taken on record during the proceedings held on 25/02/2015 referred to photograph of the cables
taken on the truck subsequently while the truck was under police custody. However, Presenting
Officer did not disclose availability of such photograph during the mutually agreed period of
disclosure of documents by Presenting Officer and defendants nor did he furnish any such
photograph before me.
Hence the charge al Sl. No. 4 above against Sri Diganta Haloi stands partially proved.
Shri Diganta Haloi cited certain reasons of urgency for proceeding with disposal of scrap оп
15/03/2014 which was an off-day in contravention of e-auction terms and condition without any
approval. In his defense, he did not furnish any document containing approval for deviating
from terms and conditions of e-auction nor did he furnish any reason for not seeking such
document of approval from his superior before proceeding for disposal on an off-day. In this
connection statement of witness of Shri Aruni Prosad Chakravortty, DGM (C&L) taken on
19/01/2015 can be referred to wherein Shri Aruni Prosad Chakravortty stated that deviations to
conditions laid down in the Business Rules, Terms and Conditions for disposal of scrap
materials has to be routed to the committee which originally approved the Business Rules,
Terms and Conditions
In his written argument submitted by him on 06.03.2015 he only defended his atteriding of duty
and carrying out the disposal activities on an off day based on verbal advice from HOD Shri
Pankaj Boro
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 5 above against Sri Diganta Haloi stands proved.”.
33. The inquiry report was submitted on 09.04.2015, against Pankaj Boro
(respondent in WA No.284/2024), which is extracted here-in-below:
Page No.# 29/54
“INQUIRY REPORT
Subject: Charges leveled against Shri Pankaj Boro, vide show cause cum charge sheet
PERS:DOSS:PB:CON dated 10/06/2014 and Shri Diganta Halol, vide show. cause cum charge
sheet PERS: DOSS:DH.CON dated 10/06/2014, respectively.
Twelve regular hearings besides a preliminary hearing were held to complete the proceedings
the inquiry. The preliminary hearing was held on 18/09/2014 at 3:00 PM at Doyang House,
NRL Township. The 1th regular hearing was held on 23/10/2014 at 4:30 PM at Doyang House,
NRL Township. The 2nd hearing was held at the NRL Learning Centre on 22/12/2014 and all
subsequent hearings until the final hearing on 6th March 2015 continued at the NRL Learning
Centre.
The following witnesses were examined and cross examined by the presenting officer and the
defendants. The depositions made by the witnesses and the arguments put forward by the
Presenting Officer and the defendants were carefully noted and the inquiry findings were
arrived at with due application of mind on the aforesaid.
1) Shri Girish Kumar Bora, Chief Manager (Instrumentation), NRL
2) Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance), NRL
3) Constable Shri Pankaj Choudhury, CISF NRL Unit
4) Shri Nakul Bora, Workman Grade 3, NRL Warehouse
5) Shri Dwipen Choudhury, Process Operator Grade VII-A, NRL Warehouse
6) Shri Aruni Prosad Chakravortty, DGM (Comml & Legal), NRL
7) Shri Prabir Talukdar, CM (Commercial), NRL
8) Shri Bipul Thakuria, Dy. Manager (Finance), NRL
The documents which were relied upon in support of the charges made against the defendants
and also other documents furnished or sought by the defendants during the initial proceedings
and furnished thereof, were relied upon in arriving at the inquiry findings. Details of such
documents are available in the Memoranda of Hearings (thirteen numbers), which are enclosed
with this report along with related annexure and attachments.
A) INQUIRY FINDINGS AGAINST CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST SHRI PANKAJ BORO:
Charges brought against Shri Pankaj Boro are summarized below:
1. Shri Pankaj Boro, while functioning as Sr. Manager (Materials) at NRL Warehouse was
Page No.# 30/54looking after all activities related to Warehouse including receipt, issue of materials and
disposal including scrap besides some unrelated jobs such as sale of hydrocarbon products
such as Sulphur, RPC/CPC Dust under his supervision. While posted and functioning as Sr.
Manager (Materials) and dealing with the disposal of CDU fire damaged items he did not heed
the advice of his superior viz. DGM (C&L), who had reservations for floating auction with
quantity as ‘lot’ and advised Shri Pankaj Boro to look into certain difficulties due to floating
auction in ‘lots’. Shri Boro acted ‘upon an e-mail from M/s Steelex (India) and went ahead for
accepting their bid for only the 2nd lot CDU/VDU burnt cables, by an approving committee of
lower rank as per DOA and did not inform the earlier committee members including his
superiors about the same.
2. Sri Pankaj Boro allowed disposal of scrap on 15-03-2014 which was an off day in NRL to
M/s Steelex (India) in contravention of E-auction terms & condition without any approval and
in absence of any other supporting staff other than Shri Diganta Haloi, Asstt. Manager
(Commercial).
3. Shri Pankaj Boro allowed the lifting of three (3) trucks of material from NRL premises by the
buyer on 15-03-2014, which was not at all from the auctioned lot.
4. Shri Pankaj Boro did not effectively supervise the activities of his sub ordinate Shri Diganta
Haloi and depended on him for all facts without any verification at his end. The materials for
the e-auction of CDU/VDU fire damaged burnt cables were kept at the designated Scrap Yard
located in North of road no- 6 in between road no-5 & 7 but Shri Boro in connivance with Shri
Haloi had allowed the materials to be loaded from other areas viz. near the sub-station no. 3,
open yard 01 and open yard 04.
5. Shri Pankaj Boro did not raise any objection or check the accuracy on the ‘eye estimation’ of
60 MT made by Shri Haloi to be the weight of the lot although the auction was held on ‘lot’ and
weight of scrap was not taken initially at the time of approval for disposal of CDU fire
damaged items.
6. Shri Pankaj Boro in connivance with Shri Diganta Haloi allowed M/s Steelex (India) to take
away 2 coils of Copper Cable of length 685 metres with a book value of Rs. 16.05 lakhs from
the open yard 01 as part of the scrap on 15-03-2014.
The above charges against Shri Pankaj Boro are found prejudicial to the interest of Numaligarh
Refinery Limited which tantamount to the following misconducts committed by him within the
meaning of Sub Rule (1), (6), (7), (10) and (20) of Rule 1. Misconduct under Part-III:
Discipline and appeal Rules of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1995 for
management staff of Numaligarh Refinery Limited, as applicable to him:
i) Theft, fraud, forgery, embezzlement, misappropriation, dishonesty in connection with the
business or property of the company or of property of another person within the premises of the
Page No.# 31/54company.
ii) Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company
iii) Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in combination with others of any
lawful and reasonable order of his superior.
iv) Neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty including malingering or slowing
down of work.
v) Breach of rules duly notified or violation of procedures laid-down in connection with the
company’s business.
Further, he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company and contravened rule
4(a), 4(b) & 4(c) of Rule 4 of part-II: Conduct Rules of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal
Rules, 1995 for management staff of Numaligarh Refinery Limited.
Inquiry findings:
1. Refer summary of reference of evidence of imputation of misconduct in support of
articles of charges framed against Shri Pankaj Boro, Sr. Manager (Materials) submitted by
the Presenting Officer over e-mail on 22/02/2015 along with the Exhibits mentioned therein,
and taken on record during the proceedings held on 25/02/2015. Shri Pankaj Boro acted
upon an email from M/s Steelex (India) and went ahead for accepting their bid only for the 2
lot-CDU/VDU burnt cables, by an approving committee of lower rank as per DOA as
compared to the committee which could approve the complete proposal of both the lots as
tendered.
Refer statement of witness of Shri Aruni Prosad Chakravortty, DGM (C&L) taken on
19/01/2015. He conveyed his reservations on the proposal for disposal which was put up to
him for approving disposal of both the lots and explained the reasons thereof.
In the written argument submitted by Sri Pankaj Boro, Senior Manager (Materials), NRL on
06.03.2015 he has cited intimation of status of auctions in general through e-mail and at the
FCM forum. However, he did not cite any evidence of intimating to all concerned the
position of auctioning only the 2nd lot CDU/VDU burnt cables by obtaining approval from a
lower committee.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 1 above against Sri Pankaj Boro stands proved.
2. Shri Pankaj Boro cited certain reasons of urgency for allowing disposal of scrap on
15/03/2014 which was an off-day in contravention of e-auction terms and condition without
seeking any approval for the same. In his defense, he did not furnish any specific and
pertinent reason for not seeking any approval for deviating from terms and conditions of e-
auction. In his written argument submitted by him on 06.03.2015 he only defended his
attending of duty on an off day for which he claimed no approval is required. In this
Page No.# 32/54
connection statement of witness of Shri Aruni Prosad Chakravortty, DGM (C&L) taken on
19/01/2015 can be referred to wherein Shri Aruni Prosad Chakravortty stated that deviations
to conditions laid down in the Business Rules, Terms and Conditions for disposal of scrap
materials has to be routed to the committee which originally approved the Business Rules,
Terms and Conditions.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 2 above against Sri Pankaj Boro stands proved.
3. Statement of witness by Shri GK Borah, Chief Manager (Projects) taken on 19/01/2015
and by Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance) taken on 09/01/2015
indicate the presence of designated scrap yard for CDU/VDU burnt cables and formation of
a taskforce to deliver the CDU / VDU burnt cables to the designated scrap yard. However,
both of them did not confirm whether Shri Pankaj Boro was communicated about the
designated scrap yard and taskforce meant for the purpose. Shri Pankaj Boro has admitted
that disposal was done from more than one location and as per his understanding such
locations are under the purview of the scrap disposal under inquiry. In this connection
departmental enquiry report dated 02.04.2014 may be referred to. The matter of designated
scrap yard for CDU/VDU burnt cables and formation of a laskforce to deliver the
CDU/VDU burnt cables to the designated scrap yard was also discussed and recorded in the
MOMs of the relevant CDU/VDU shutdown meetings in which the participants were from the
technical functions. No ciocumentary evidence was furnished during the proceedings
specifically identifying the location and existence of a designated scrap yard and
communicating the same to Shri Pankaj Boro.
However, notwithstanding the above, it cannot be denied that Shri Pankaj Boro, being the
HOD of Stores was not aware of the designated scrap yard for CDU/VDU burnt cables.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 3 above against Sri Pankaj Boro stands partially proved.
4. Shri Pankaj Boro himself admitted that disposal was done from more than one location
and as per his understanding such locations are under the purview of the scrap disposal
under inquiry, vide departmental enquiry report dated 02.04.2014. No documentary evidence
was furnished during the proceedings specifically identifying the location and existence of a
designated scrap yard and communicating the same to Shri Pankaj Boro. However,
notwithstanding the above, it cannot be denied that Shri Pankaj Boro, being the HOD of
Stores was not aware of the designated scrap yard for CDU/VDU burnt cables. Statements of
04 Hydra operators / helpers, CISF Constable Pankaj Choudhary, CISF Head Constable
Rajut Borah reveals that Shri Pankaj Boro and Shri Diganta Haloi had allowed the
materials to be loaded from areas viz. near the sub-station no. 3, open yard 01 and open
yard 04.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 4 above against Sri Pankaj Boro stands partially proved.
5. Shri Pankaj Boro has denied making any assumption for the weight and instead stated
that Shri Diganta Haloi had estimated the same due to CISF requirement of quantification of
materials going out of the refinery. Refer Statement of Shri Pankaj Boro, given to the
vigilance officers of NRL on 3rd & 4th April’2014. Moreover no documents or any other
evidence was furnished during the inquiry proceedings to establish that Shri Pankaj Boro
raised any objection to or check the accuracy of the eye estimation of 60 MT made by Shri
Page No.# 33/54
Diganta Haloi arbitrarily without any basis.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 5 above against Sri Pankaj Boro stands proved.
6. Statements of 04 Hydra operators / helpers, CISF Constable Pankaj Choudhary, CISF
Head Constable Rajut Borah reveal that Shri Pankaj Boro and Shri Diganta Haloi had
allowed materials to be loaded from open yard 01.
In the physical verification by stores at Open Yard 01 on 09.04.2014, report submitted by
Shri Prabir Talukdar on 11.04.2014 against occurrence of the incident on 15.03.14, it was
indicated that there was shortage of 685 meters Copper Cable with Tag no. E-CA-CU-300-
A.
Statement of witness by Shri GK Borah, Chief Manager (Projects) taken on 19/01/2015, by
Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance) taken on 09/01/2015, by Shri
Prabir Kumar Talukder, CM (Commercial) taken on 07/01/2015 and Report from SDE,
APDCL Kamargaon Electrical Sub-Division dated 22/03/2014 do not confirm that two coils
of Copper Cable of length 685 metres with a book value of Rs. 16.05 lakhs from the open
yard 01 were a part of the scrap disposed on 15-03-2014.
Presenting Officer, in his summary of reference of evidence of imputation of misconduct in
support of articles of charges framed against Shri Pankaj Boro, Sr. Manager (Materials),
submitted by him over e-mail on 22/02/2015 along with the Exhibits mentioned therein, and
taken on record during the proceedings held on 25/02/2015 referred to photograph of the
cables taken on the truck subsequently while the truck was under police custody. However,
Presenting Officer did not disclose availability of such photograph during the mutually
agreed period of disclosure of documents by Presenting Officer and defendants nor did he
furnish any such photograph before me.
Hence the charge at Sl. No. 6 above against Sri Pankaj Boro stands partially proved”.
34. Perusal of the above findings shows that out of the 5 (five) charges against
the respondent Diganta Haloi in WA 283/2024, Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 were
found to be partially proved and Charge No.5 was found to be proved. Similarly,
the enquiry report in respect of respondent Pankaj Boro in WA 284/2024,
Charges No. 1, 2 and 5 were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, and
Charges No.3, 4 and 6 were found to be partially proved.
35. On consideration of the memorandum/article of charges reveals that the
allegations against the respondents/writ petitioners were that the scrap
materials that were auctioned were all stored at one place in the scrap yard and
Page No.# 34/54
the respondents/writ petitioners have allowed M/s. Steelex (India) Ltd. to
unauthorizedly lift materials from various places and such materials were
beyond the scrap materials so auctioned. The additional materials so
purportedly allowed to be lifted has been quantified as 31.95 MT of cables. It is
mentioned as 2 (two) coils of copper cable of length 685 meters with a book
value of Rs. 16.05 lakhs.
36. Among the eight witnesses examined in the Disciplinary Inquiry, four
witnesses appears to be relevant, namely- 1. Shri Nakul Bora, General
Workman, 2. Shri G. K. Borah, Chief Manager (Instrumentation), 3. Shri H.
Neog, Senior Manager (EM) and 4. Shri Pankaj Choudhary, CISF Personnel. Shri
Nakul Bora, General Workman, had stated during cross-examination that the
scrap materials were not sealed in one location and that various locations were
used for the same. Shri G. K. Borah, Chief Manager (Instrumentation), in his
statement had stated that there were not only burnt cables but also cut pieces
and damaged cables and that after a lapse of 9 months, it is difficult to
ascertain the original source of the cables present in the heaps. He further
stated that the cables were physically damaged or loose cut pieces and that the
length and physical condition thereof could not be ascertained as measurement
and testing was not carried out. Shri H. Neog, Senior Manager (EM) in his
statement stated that due to the fire, multiple cut pieces were generated. He
stated that majority of the damaged cables were brought to the warehouse,
however, a few fire damaged/unusable cables were also dumped elsewhere at
the scrap yard. He further stated that besides burnt cables, there were also cut
pieces and other damaged cables and after a period of 9 months, it is difficult to
ascertain the original source of cables. Shri Pankaj Choudhary, CISF Personnel
who was present during lifting of te materials stated that the cables in question
Page No.# 35/54
appeared to be damaged cables and they did not appear to be new cables.
37. On the perusal of the Inquiry Report, it is seen that no attempt was made
during the course of inquiry to establish that the two bundles of cables found at
the bottom of the 3rdtruck did in fact measure 685 meters of cables that were
found missing from the stores. It appears that no attempt to prove or establish
the two bundles so found in the third truck weighed 31.95 MT as alleged in
Charges. There was no attempt to establish that the two bundles of cables
found in the third truck were not scrap materials generated from the fire
accident. Thus, we find that there is no evidence on record to establish any of
the charges as a consequence of which the Inquiry Officer entirely failed to
record any finding which would indicate that any material beyond the auction
material was at all lifted from the appellant NRL premises. The basic charge not
having been established and no finding to such effect having been arrived at, all
other charges appears inconsequential.
38. It is noted that the disciplinary authority after receipt of the inquiry report
on conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, has directed for further inquiry to be
conducted in respect of Charge No.4 and 6 against the respondents with regard
to the materials in the form of DVD, containing video clips and photographs,
which were sought to be introduced as evidence. Pursuant thereto, a second
report of the further inquiry was submitted on 29.07.2015. The report is
extracted herein under:-
“NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
Ref: PERS:DOSS:PB/DH:CON Date: 08 July 2015
Page No.# 36/54NOTE TO : DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
Subject: Inquiry Report on charges leveled against Shri Pankaj Boro & Shri
Diganta Haloi – ADDENDUMVide note reference PERS: DOSS:PB/DH:CON dated 08.06.2015 from Director (Technical),
NRL on the subject, I was advised to conduct further inquiry on charge number 6 brought
against Shri Pankaj Boro and charge number 4 brought against Shri Diganta Haloi. This was
issued as per Rule 6 (21) part-III: Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal Rules, 1995 for Management Staff of Numaligarh Refinery Limited. Accordingly
Presenting Officer, vide e-mail dated 13.06.2015 from me, was given opportunity to produce the
photograph as well as other documents/witnesses, if required, pertaining to the above
mentioned charges. Presenting Officer furnished to me three copies of a DVD (signed by him
dated 13.06.2015 on the face of the DVD by marker pen) containing soft copy of total 20
numbers of video clips and 6 numbers of still images pertaining to the aforesaid charges. A
copy each of the DVDs was handed over to Shri Pankaj Boro and Shri Diganta Haloi on the
same day, i.e. 13.06.2015 along with individual notices for hearing scheduled on 18/06/2015.
The findings of the aforesaid further inquiry are produced below for your further needful
please.
A. The findings with respect to charge number 6 brought against Shri Pankaj Boro and charge
number 4 brought against Shri Diganta Haloi based on the Inquiry Report dated 20th March
2015 are:
i. Statements of 04 Hydra operators / helpers, CISF Constable Pankaj
Choudhary, CISF Head Constable Rajut Borah reveal that Shri Pankaj Boro and Shri
Diganta Haloi had allowed materials to be loaded from open yard 01.
ii. The physical verification by stores at Open Yard 01, which indicated that
there was shortage of 685 meters Copper Cable with Tag no. E-CA-CU-300-A, was
done on 09.04.2014, i.e., 25 days after the incident which happened on 15.03.14 and the
report was submitted by Shri Prabir Talukdar 02 days later on 11.04.2014.
iii. Statement of witness by Shri GK Borah, Chief Manager (Projects) taken on
19/01/2015, by Shri Hemanta Neog, Sr. Manager (Electrical Maintenance) taken on
09/01/2015, by Shri Prabir Kumar Talukder, CM (Commercial) taken on 07/01/2015
and Report from SDE, APDCL Kamargaon Electrical Sub-Division dated 22/03/2014
do not confirm that two coils of Copper Cable of length 685 metres with a book value of
Rs. 16.05 lakhs from the open yard 01 were a part of the scrap disposed on 15-03-2014.
Page No.# 37/54
iv. Shri Diganta Haloi stated that due to the pressure of the bidder, he jointly
with Sr Manager (Materials) decided to compensate the bidder by handing over old
cramped twisted copper cable of around 1.5 tonne lying in the OY01 for a long period
of time. This, as claimed by him, was due to wrong information given by Warehouse to
the bidder and demanded Warehouse to refund their EMD of compensate their loss of
Rs. 1.75 lakhs However, subsequently, in his written statement of defense dated
12.07.2014 submitted to Director (Technical) Shri Diganta Haloi denied this statement
saying this was out of mental pressure and duress of the higher officials.
v. Presenting Officer, in his summary of reference of evidence of imputation of
misconduct in support of articles of charges framed against Shri Pankaj Boro, Sr.
Manager (Materials). submitted by him over e-mail on 22/02/2015 along with the
Exhibits mentioned therein, and taken on record during the proceedings held on
25.02.2015 referred to photograph of the cables taken on the truck subsequently while
the truck was under police custody. However, Presenting Officer did not disclose
availability of such photograph during the mutually agreed period of disclosure of
documents by Presenting Officer and defendants nor did he furnish any such
photograph before me.
vi. Excerpts from 9th regular hearing with respect to the enquiry, held on
10/02/2015 at 10:30 AM at Training Centre (Learning Centre), NRL Site:
“Presenting officer has appeal for permission from Enquiry Officer to Exhibit a few
numbers of video clips recently collected from CISF, which captured the videography of
the trucks at the material physical inspection on 20/03/2014 inside refinery premises
under police custody.
Enquiry Officer denied the aforesaid request of the Presenting Officer as allowing fresh
evidences/witnesses/exhibits after lapse of about a year of the incident may open
avenues for fresh similar demand from the defendants and this will inordinately
prolonged the process of enquiry”.
B. The subsequent hearing was held on 18/06/2015 at 10:30 AM at Learning Centre,
NRL Site as scheduled, in which the following were present:
1) Shri D. Choudhury, GM (DM): Inquiry Officer
2) Shri N.K. Buragohain, CM (IIS & ERP): Presenting Officer
3) Shri Pankaj Boro, SM (Materials): Defendant
4) Shri Diganta Haloi, AM (Warehouse): Defendant
5) Shri Mintu Handique, SM (Projects): Assisting Officer to Shri Pankaj Boro.
6) Shri Kumud Saikia, AM (LPG Operations): Assisting Officer to Shri Diganta Haloi.
Page No.# 38/54
Proceedings of the hearing are as follows:
i. Presenting Officer displayed photographs and video clips and stated as
follows:
The 3 trucks loaded with CDU/VDU burnt scrap cables and kept under police custody
were taken back to refinery premises for physical inspection as already discussed in.
earlier hearings. The entire process was seen in the videos. The activities were
performed in presence of police, CISF personnel, NRL officials and other people in a
transparent manner. The material which loaded on the trucks was visible from the
videos. The materials loaded in the truck no. WB23C/1955 was also visible in the video
clips. The tag no. E-CA-CU-300-A mentioned in the physical verification report (Exhibit
No. 46) was also visible from the video as well as still images (lile name-
2_Item_CodeorTagNo_E-CA-CU-300-A.jpg, pic3.png and pic4.png).
ii. Shri Pankaj Boro responded as follows:
He has no knowledge regarding the 20 (twenty) nos, video clips and 6 (six) nos. of still
images contained in the DVD sent by Inquiry Officer along with letter reference No. Nil
dated 13.06.2015 and he has doubts on the photographs and video clips. Some of the
video clips contained in the DVD provided cannot be opened by him. Also before filing
his written statement no such types of video clips and still images were given to him.
iii. Shri Diganta Haloi responded as follows:
The said photographs and video clips were neither part of list of documents attached
with the charge sheet dated 10/06/2014 nor the same were part of additional documents
produced during the enquiry proceedings. Moreover, after completion of whole physical
verification on 20/03/2014, one expert from SDE, APDCL, Kamargaon Electrical Sub-
Division also verified same cables and made his comments in this regard on that day.
In addition to above, item code is not clearly visible and the cables shown in the video
clips appeared as un-useable (cut and damaged). This is as per statement of NRL
technical department as appearing in the video clip No. M2U03632 and as seen in the
video clip VTS_01_2. Also any item code was not mentioned in the statements of
preliminary enquiry report. Further, quantity of cables in the heap of truck no.
WB23C/1955 could not be ascertained from the video clips ‘VTS_01_2’.
iv. There being no further deliberation on the matter noted above, the hearing
was closed.
Page No.# 39/54
Based on the aforesaid findings, more particularly the photographs and video clips of
coils of cables submitted as evidence by the Presenting Officer, the charge number 6
brought against Shri Pankaj Boro and the charge number 4 brought against Shri
Diganta Haloi stands proved.
(Debashish Choudhury)
Inquiry Officer”.
39. On the perusal of the report, it appears that the video clips and
photographs were introduced. The Inquiry Officer did not examine the author of
the said video clips and photographs as no any finding is recorded with regard
to the fresh evidence being introduced but proceeded to hold that the Charge
No. 4 and 6 against the respondents stand proved.
40. Records, does not reflect as to whether the two coils of large dimensions
can be treated to be scrap or useless materials or whether they were fresh or
useable cables. No such finding is recorded on the two coils to support the
conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Even if the DVDs containing the
video clippings and still photographs are taken on face value, even then there
must be some evidence to arrive at a conclusion that these two coils of large
dimensions are not a part of the lots which were auctioned and that the same
were unauthorizedly permitted by the respondents/writ petitioners to be lifted
by M/s Steelex (India) Ltd. In view of above, we are of the view that the
findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in both the first and second enquiries,
are not based on any material which are shown to be present in support of the
charges brought against the respondents/writ petitioners.
41. The main thrust of submission advanced by the learned senior counsel
on behalf of the appellants, assailing the impugned judgment and order dated
Page No.# 40/5415.07.2024 is on the admission/confession of the respondent/writ petitioner Mr.
Diganta Haloi, which alleged to have been made during the preliminary inquiry.
It is noticed that the said admission/confession alleged to have made during the
course of the preliminary inquiry, the respondent/writ petitioner Diganta Haloi
has retracted the same and stated that while doing so, the NRL authorities had
already typed out/written out the statement and he was made to put his
signature under mental pressure and duress. Although, no particulars have been
given by the respondent against the allegation of pressure and duress, it is well
settled that the preliminary inquiry cannot be a basis to impose the penalty in
the disciplinary proceedings. Moreso, the alleged admission does not have any
co-relation with the charges that were framed and the said admission never
formed the basis and no finding thereon was recorded in the inquiry reports.
42. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 4
SCC 301, wherein the Hon’ble supreme Court, after consideration of the its
earlier decisions, has held that the departmental proceeding being a quasi
judicial one, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with.
The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to
whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent
officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and
irrelevant facts have been excluded there from. Inference on facts must be
based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. It has held
that it is settled legal proposition that judicial review is not akin to adjudication
on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. The only
consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review, is to consider whether
the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or
Page No.# 41/54
whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. The adequacy or reliability of
the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court in writ proceedings. It is further held that a Constitution Bench in Amlendu
Ghosh v. District Traffic Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Katiyar, reported in AIR
1960 SC 992, held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of
a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular
fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been
committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no
order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to
whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to
be held. A preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted
after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether
disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular
enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance
and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by
observing principles of natural justice of nor, remains of no consequence.
Accordingly, it has held that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot
be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and
opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given.
Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. The
preliminary enquiry may be useful only to take a prima facie view, as to whether
there can be some substance in the allegation made against an employee which
may warrant a regular enquiry.
43. As also referred and relied by the learned Single Judge and the learned
senior counsel for the respondent, in Roop Singh Negi (supra) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial
Page No.# 42/54
proceeding. The Inquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges
leveled against the delinquent Officer must be found to have been proved. The
Inquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration
the materials brought on record by the parties. In the context of the facts of
that case it was held that the evidence collected during investigation by the
Investigating Officer against the accused by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in disciplinary proceedings. No witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses merely presented the documents and
did not prove the contents thereof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further went on
to hold, on the facts of that case, that the only basic evidence on which reliance
was placed by the Inquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the
appellant before the police. It was held that on the basis of the contentions of
the appellant therein that he was forced to sign to the said confession as in the
police station, it was held that the appellant being an employee of the Bank,
said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been
brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the Bank Draft Book.
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence and there was no indirect evidence.
Referring to earlier precedent rendered, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the materials required to be brought on record pointing out to the guilt are
required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence which is
legally admissible. It is held that the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
strictly applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural
justice are. It was held in the facts of that case that the inferences drawn by the
Inquiry Officer were not supported by any evidence. It is held that suspicion as
is well known, however high under no circumstance shall be a substitute for
legal proof.
Page No.# 43/54
44. In Satyendra Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court has held which is
reproduced herein under:-
“14. In the case of Roop Singh Negit, this Court held that mere production
of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be
proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:-
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial
proceeding. The endure officer performs a quasi-judicial function.
The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to
have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a
finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by
itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the
documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter
alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not
have been treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basis evidence
whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the
purported confession made by the appellant before the police.
According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on confession, as
he was tortured in the police station The appellant being an
employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been
proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to
show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book.
Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no
Indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the
enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as
otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the
offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.
19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in
Narinder Mohan Arya case ((2006) 4 SCC 713; 2006 SCC (L&S)
8401 had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in
the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to
have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the
aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the
validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed.
This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived
at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court
would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court
emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if
there is some evidence on record….”
Page No.# 44/54
15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha 12 wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte Inquiry, it is
the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the
Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in
Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:- “28. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator.
He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary
authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented
by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as
to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges
are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have
not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to
conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has
been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him,
but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix
any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness
has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the
respondent. The High Court therefore, has rightly observed that the entire
proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of
the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play.
The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the
proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the
charge-sheet.”
16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhalals, this Court held that evidence
recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as
the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-
examine extract thereof reads as under:-
“42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North
Eastern Railway AIR 1960 SC 9921, held that the purpose of holding a
preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only
for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to
whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of
the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can
be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a
regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be
held.
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964
SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view
held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry.
The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2)
of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for
it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the
Page No.# 45/54sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government
servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be
heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to
whether a regular Inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under:
(AIR p. 1862, para 12)
“12…. There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries
and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental
enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the
three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government
servant is entitled to the protection of that article [nor prior to that]”.
44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra
(1997) 1 SCC 299; 1997 SCC (L &S) 152; AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court
dealt with the issue and held as under: V. State of
“… a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted
after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out
whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent.
Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry
loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in
accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic)
nor, remains of no consequence.”
45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in
preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is
not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons
examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be
violative of the principles of natural justice.
45. We may also refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in
the case of Airport Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, reported in
(2025) 4 SCC 111, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has held which is
reproduced herein under:-
“32. In the case at hand, the subject matter concerns a domestic enquiry, where
the strict rules of evidence prohibiting admissibility of confessional statements
recorded by the police officials do not apply. Likewise, non-examination of the
decoy cannot be treated to be fatal in the domestic enquiry where other evidence
indicts the delinquent officer. As has been held by this Court in the case of
Narender Singh(supra), even a confession of the delinquent employee recorded
by the Trap Laying Officer during the criminal investigation can be relied upon
by the Disciplinary Authority.
35. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the
Page No.# 46/54Disciplinary Authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the
delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and
detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing
punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view
stands fortified by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi
Gaolia Bank27, wherein it was held:-
“11. . . . Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons
are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is
imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. . . .”
36. All that is required on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is that it should
examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned
conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry
establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of
preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the
Disciplinary 27 (2021) 3 SCC 806. Authority and the Appellate Authority while
dealing with the case of the respondent.
38. In this regard, we are benefitted by the judgment of this Court in the Union
of India v. Sardar Bahadur,28 wherein this Court held as follows: –
“15. . . . A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof
required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond
reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have
official dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would
draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of
appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials
which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably support
the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive
at an independent finding on the materials. If the enquiry has been properly held
the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed
before the High Court. . . .”.
40. The law relating to the exercise of intra-Court jurisdiction is crystallised by
this Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited
v. Workmen of Narendra & Company,30 wherein it was held as under:
“5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the
conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no
justification in entering a different finding without any further material before
the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the
statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that
Page No.# 47/54as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate
Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it
shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is
possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed
by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.”
(emphasis supplied).
41. The position is, thus, settled that in an intra-court writ appeal, the Appellate
Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment of the learned Single
Judge is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law. However, the
Division Bench, in the present case, failed to record any such finding and rather,
proceeded to delve into extensive re- appreciation of evidence to overturn the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
46. Regard being had to the findings of the learned Single Judge in paragraph
34 to the effect that the appellate authority could not have modified the
imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority to that of the compulsory
retirement without adhering to the criteria and procedure prescribed in the
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1995 for management staff of Numaligarh
Refinery Limited, being contrary to the provisions, thereby interfered with the
same, we are unable to agree with the same as the Rules of Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal Rules, 1995 for Management Staff clearly provides for compulsory
retirement as one of the major penalties. It appears that the amended Rules of
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1995 appears to have not been placed
before the learned Single Judge, which has led to the return of such finding by
the learned Single Judge.
47. On the applicability of Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872,
pertaining to DVDs containing the video clips and the still photographs, we are
of the view that although the rules of evidence would not be strictly applicable
Page No.# 48/54
in the departmental inquiry, the author of the said DVDs and the photographs
ought to have been examined. In the present case, as revealed from the record,
no attempt appears to have been made to examine the person/author of the
DVDs and the photographs. Therefore, the same could not have been said to be
proved in the inquiry without there being any persons who had taken the video
clips and the photographs being examined and as such the finding of inquiry
officer in the subsequent inquiry report that the charge against the
respondents/writ petitioners stood proved, is based on no evidence as the
author or the person taking these video clips and still photographs have not
been examined and proved to drive home the charge that the respondents/writ
petitioners are guilty of permitting the scraps to take away materials which were
not a part of the said 2 lots. It is settled position of law that even in a
disciplinary proceeding mere tendering of documents would not be enough and
that the contents thereof are required to be proved.
48. The case of Rattan Singh (Supra) relied by the learned senior counsel for
the appellants, relates to termination of Bus conductor. The charge was that the
Inspector of the Flying squad discovered that some passengers were not issued
tickets though they paid fares. Domestic Inquiry was held and the guilt was
established. The trial court and High Court interfered with the termination on
the ground that the ticketless passengers were not examined. The Hon’ble
supreme Court found that the Inspector had tried to get their statements
recorded but passengers declined, therefore, merely because their statements
were not recorded, the order for termination cannot be invalid. In the above
factual context, the Hon’ble Supreme court has that it is well settled that in a
domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a
Page No.# 49/54
prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided
it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities
and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and
should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian
Evidence Act. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of
extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural
justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or
surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such
finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the
courts below mis-directed themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who
had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal
before a valid finding could be recorded. The simple point is, was there some
evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules
governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common-sense way as men of
understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of
evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny.
Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainty available for the
court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record.
In the present case, it is not a case of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence but a
case of absence of any evidence in support of the findings, therefore, in our
view the above case law does not come to the aid of the appellants.
49. The law on the scope of interference of the court in the disciplinary
proceedings is well settled. As relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants, in Chitra Venkata Rao, (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court has held
which is reproduced herein under:-
Page No.# 50/54
“21.The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has
come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court
in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao(1). First, there is no
warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty
of misconduct charged against him,. the rule followed in criminal trials
that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond
reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that
rule be not applied by a domestic Tribunal o Inquiry the High Court in a
petition under Article-226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare
the order of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry invalid. The
High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 over the decision of
the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant.
The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an
authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not
violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authorities
entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to
review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the
evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental
authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory
rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing
themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the
conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The
departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held,
the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their
findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a
matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a
proceeding for a writ under Article 226.”
“23.The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a
supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an Appellate Court.
The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or Tribunal as a result of
the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ
proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record
can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of facts however grave it may
appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a Tribunal, a writ
can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the
Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material
evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has
influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no
Page No.# 51/54evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be
corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material
evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to
sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point
and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
50. It is true that the High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226
over the decision in a departmental enquiry. Departmental authorities are, if the
enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some
legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy of reliability
of that evidence is not a matter which can be gone into by the High Court in
proceedings under Article 226. However, we find that in the present case, the
enquiry has not been held properly and there is no any evidence worth
credence to have been proved as the basic charges of two coils of large
dimension which can be treated as scrap or fresh or useable material and
whether the same were unauthorisedly permitted by the delinquent officers to
be lifted are not proved. We are conscious of the settled position of law that the
writ court will not sit as an appellate authority against the disciplinary authority
and shall not re-appreciate the evidence and the findings in the disciplinary
proceedings. However, if the penalty is imposed on the delinquents based on no
evidence, same cannot be sustained at all.
51. In the case of Bishundeo Narain (Supra), a partition suit was instituted
headed by the Karta of the family alongwith Minor through exercise of undue
influence, coercion alleged to have been forced the minor to compromise. In
that context the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that no proper particulars
have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than
Page No.# 52/54
any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties
pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on
the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence.
General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of
which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which
they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and
coercion. Where coercion of threat of death is alleged it is necessary to give
particulars as to the nature of threat, the circumstances etc. and in the absence
of such particulars it would be impossible to reach proper conclusion.
52. The case of Shyam Lal (Supra) pertains to workman found to have
committed misconduct while working as a conductor. He had collected money
but had not issued tickets as was found during the checking. Accordingly,
departmental proceedings were initiated. He had admitted his guilt and pleaded
for leniency. Basing on his admission, he was found guilty and removed from
service. The Industrial Tribunal did not accord approval of the removal being of
the view that the admission was of no consequence the officer who had
conducted the enquiry had no direct evidence and the statements made by the
persons before the officer conducting the checking was in the nature of hearsay
evidence. The employer challenge the order fo the Tribunal and the Single
Judge of the High Court allowed the petition. In LPA filed by the workman, the
order of the Tribunal was restored. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has
been observed that the statement made by the passengers who had paid excess
money to the checking officer is not in the nature of hearsay evidence and
additionally the effect of the admission regarding the guilt by the workman have
not been considered in the proper perspective. In that context, it has been held
that it is a fairly settled position in law that admission is the best piece of
Page No.# 53/54
evidence against the person making the admission. It is, however, open to the
person making the admission to show why the admission is not to be acted
upon.
53. In the present case, we find that it is not a case of admission of guilt per
se but an admission alleged to have been made during the course of preliminary
enquiry, that too having no correlation with the basic charges. That apart, as
noted herein above, it is not a case of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence but a
case of absence of any evidence in support of the findings, therefore, in our
view the above case laws also do not come to the aid of the appellants.
54. We take note of the other aspect relating to the exercise of intra-Court
jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Supra),
referring to the earlier decision, has held that law is settled that in an intra-court
writ appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is permissible only if the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is perverse or suffers from an error
apparent in law.
55. In view of what has been discussed here-in-above and in the light of the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view
that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the respondents/writ petitioners
and the findings arrived by the Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. Thus, no interference is warranted to the
impugned judgement and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in these intra court appeals, except the conclusion at paragraph 46
herein
Page No.# 54/54
above. Thus, we find no merit in these appeals. Accordingly, these two appeals
stand dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link