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

The Calcutta High Court led by Justice Amit Sinha, while dismissing a writ petition, said that it is settled law that in domestic enquiries strict rules of evidence is not required to be followed. The charge is decided upon the preponderance of probabilities. The court added, as long as there is some evidence in support of the charges the disciplinary authority can act on the basis of the same. The petitioner herein is a bus conductor employed with the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (CSTC). The vehicle in which the petitioner was performing his duty was checked by the checking squad. The conductor cash bag of the petitioner was checked and an amount of Rs. 398/- was detected as excess of the sale proceeds of the tickets. And the petitioner failed to account for the said excess amount of cash in his bag. The Depot Manager later issued an order of suspension upon him. The petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and he was directed to deposit his identity card in the office. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written statement either admitting or denying the charges alleged him. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet saying, though he mentioned that the allegation levelled against him was false he however, admitted that an amount of Rs. 400/- was with him when the checking squad checked his bag and it was with him for purchasing medicines. The Senior Disciple Officer of the CSTC intimated the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has appointed a discipline officer of CSTC as an inquiry officer and the head clerk of the Central Discipline Section as Presenting Officer in the disciplinary proceedings. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on the ground that the charge sheet served upon the petitioner was defective and vague. The petitioner prayed for setting aside the suspension order as well as the charge sheet. The petitioner however participated in the disciplinary proceeding without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition a final order of punishment was passed against him. The petitioner thus filed an interlocutory application incorporating subsequent facts and documents on record. Subsequently, the Deputy Managing DIrector, (CSTC) issued an order the punishment of reduction of pay of the petitioner to the initial stage in the timescale of pay of conductor with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. And also, the petitioner was warned that in case of recurrence of such offence in future he may make himself liable for severe disciplinary action, including termination of service. The petitioner was aggrieved by the imposition of penalty against him and also the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of a defective charge sheet. The petitioner further pointed out that there are glaring discrepancies between the suspension order and the charge sheet issued against him. He further aggrieved that the checking squad consisted of a member who is not an employee of the CSTC and an outsider is not authorised to join the checking squad. The petitioner alleged violation of natural justice. The petitioner further alleged that the officer acted in a biased manner by compelling him to sign on pre-written documents. And also alleged that he was not present at the time of recording the evidence of the management witnesses and accordingly there has been an infraction in the principle of natural justice. And prayed for setting aside the disciplinary proceeding culminating in the order of punishment. The respondents vociferously opposed the prayer of the petitioner contenting that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate forum and that the instant writ petition ought not to be entertained by the court. The respondent further added that the petitioner himself admitted in his charge sheet that the said money was held by him in excess of the sale proceeds of the tickets, is a clear case of admission of guilt. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner is a repeated offender since was charged with similar offences on earlier occasions and also that the checking squad consisted of the employees of the CSTC and no outsider was a part of the said squad. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition by saying that the petitioner had admitted the guilt he intentionally did not avail the opportunity of cross examining the witnesses. The court said that as long as there is some evidence in support of the charges, the disciplinary authority can act on the basis of the same. The court further added, in the case at hand, the evidence lies heavily against the petitioner and that there does not appear to be any apparent illegality in conducting...

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

Arabhi Anandan

Tags