THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25731 of 1999 Dt:15-07-2010 Between : L.J. Ramaiah, West-Godavari and others ..Petitioner And The Cement Corporation of India Limited, Rep. by the Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi and others. .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Abinand Kumar Shavili Counsel for respondents : Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25731 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner was selected and appointed as Deputy Manager (Marketing) in the Cement Corporation of India (for short ‘the Corporation’), a public Sector Undertaking, the 1st respondent herein, on 11-01-1985. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Manager (Marketing) in the year 1995, and posted in the southern zone. In August 1998, two charge-sheets were issued by the Disciplinary Authority of the Corporation, the 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner filed W.P.No.29636 of 1998, challenging the said two charge-sheets. This Court granted interim stay of further proceedings on 10-11-1998. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Disciplinary Authority issued another charge-sheet dated 24-12-1998 to the petitioner. The charges were, mostly about the failure of the petitioner to submit returns of his movable and immovable properties, and acquisition of properties without intimation to the Corporation. He did not submit any explanation within the stipulated time. The Disciplinary Authority appointed the 6th respondent as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4728 of 1999, challenging the charge-sheet dated 24-12-1998, and other ancilliary proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed on 10-03-1999. On account of the non-participation of the petitioner, he was set ex parte in the above proceedings. The 6th respondent submitted an inquiry report on 11-03-1999, holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 22-03-1999, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director, the 2nd respondent. The appeal was rejected on 06-05-1999. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the very charges were baseless, trivial and framed by the 4th respondent, in his capacity as Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), with a view to take vengeance. It is also stated that at every stage of the proceedings, he was denied the opportunity to defend himself. On behalf of the respondents-Corporation, a detailed counter- affidavit is filed. It is stated that the activities of the petitioner was so notorious, that the C.B.I., initiated proceedings against him. According to them, every employee, who joins the Corporation, must submit returns in relation to movable and immovable properties held by him and intimate the Corporation as and when any fresh acquisitions are made. It is pleaded that in spite of repeated demands, and reminders, the petitioner did not submit such returns. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent had severe grievance against the petitioner, and at the fag end of his tenure, he issued one after the other charge-sheets against the petitioner. He contends that the very fact that the charge- sheet dated 24-12-1998 was issued, even while W.P.No.29636 of 1998, filed against two other charge-sheets, was pending; discloses the level of prejudice. Learned counsel submits that on account of the petitioner being subjected to prosecution, in certain cases, he was handicapped and prevented in law from submitting the returns and responding to the charge-sheet, and taking advantage of the same, the authorities proceeded with undue haste, and dismissed the petitioner from service. He further submits that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner failed to submit the returns, which is a mandatory requirement under the Service Regulations. He contends that the petitioner did not choose to submit any reply, nor did appear before the Inquiry Officer, in spite of receiving notices. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: “Article-I. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, while functioning as Dy.Manager (Mktg.), Manager (Mktg.), A.G.M. (Mktg.) and A.G.M. (Govt. Relations) during the period January, 1985 to October, 1998 with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives did not furnish return of immovable assets on first appointment as required under Rule 21 (iii) of CCI’s CDA Rules and also acquired huge immovable assets without the previous knowledge of prescribed authority, and to further conceal and cover up the unknown source through which these acquisitions of assets were financed, he furnished vague and incorrect information with regard to actual source of financing. Thus, Shri Ramaiah acted in a manner unbecoming of an executive of the Corporation, violating Rule 21(i) and (iii) of CCI’s Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules. Shri L. Ramaiah, by his above acts, exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an executive of the Corporation, thereby violating Rule 7, read with Rule 27(x), (xviii) and (xxiv) of CCI’s Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Article-II. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, while functioning as Manager (Mktg.), A.G.M. (Mktg.) and A.G.M. (Govt. Relations) during 1992-98 deliberately concealed substantial investment made in acquiring parking lot and on renovation and furnishing of his flat no.101 at Vaishali Apartments, with a view to conceal from the Corporation, the dubious means of financing for acquiring these assets. In so doing, Shri Ramaiah acted in a manner unbecoming of an executive of the Corporation and also violated Rule 21(i) of CCI’s Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, by his above acts, exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an executive of the Corporation, thereby violating Rule 7, read with Rule 27(x), (xviii) and (xxiv) of CCI’s Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules. Article-III. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, while functioning as Manager (Mktg.), A.G.M.(Mktg.) and A.G.M. (Govt. Relations) at Zonal Office, CCI, Hyderabad during 1991-98 financed purchase of 5000 units of LIC Mutual Fund under the scheme of Dhanvarsha (4) in the name of his minor daughter and to cover up the actual source of financing these acquisition he gave self contradictory and misleading information in the statements furnished by him on 5.7.97 and 16.10.97. Shri L.J. Ramaiah thus made contradictory, false and misleading statement for financing above said purchase of 5000 units of LIC Mutual Fund to conceal his unknown source of income. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, by his above acts, exhibited dishonesty, lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an Executive of the Corporation, thereby violating Rule 7 read with Rule 27(x), (xviii) & (xxiv) of CCI’s Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules. Article-IV. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, while functioning as Dy.Manager (Mktg.), Manager (Mktg.), A.G.M.(Marketing) and A.G.M. (Govt. Relations) at zonal Office, CCI, Hyderabd during 1985-98, though appointed in 1985, he did not file property return till 1996, in spite of reminders. He also did not comply with the instructions issued through letters dated 14.8.98, 31.8.98 and 22.9.98 requiring him to furnish details of his movable and immovable assets which were sought for by CBI through the Corporation. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, thus, has disobeyed the reasonable orders of Management and violated Rule 21(iv) of CCI’s CDA Rules. Shri L.J. Ramaiah, by his above acts, violated Rule 27(xviii) and (xxiv) of CCI’s Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules”. The charges framed against the petitioner are, mostly in relation to his failure to submit returns of his movable and immovable assets, and alleged acquisition of properties, without information and intimation to the Corporation. It is true that the charge-sheet in question was issued at a time, when W.P.No.29636 of 1998, filed against the two earlier charge-sheets; was pending. The fact however, remains that W.P.No.4728 of 1999, filed against the instant charge- sheet; was dismissed on 10-03-1999. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner did not choose to submit any explanation. The 6th respondent was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. He too issued several notices, requiring the petitioner to appear before him. The petitioner dodged the matter by issuing telegrams, one after the other. He did not even participate in the preliminary stage of the inquiry. The 6th respondent was left with no alternative, except to proceed with the inquiry by setting the petitioner ex parte. One of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the inquiry proceedings issued subsequent to the day, on which W.P.No.4728 of 1999 was dismissed. A perusal of the proceedings recorded by the 6th respondent discloses that the petitioner did not submit explanation in spite of repeated notices, and on that basis, he proceeded to record the oral evidence of a witness, examined on behalf of the Corporation, and took on record, the various documents, filed before him. It is urged that the inquiry officer ought to have adjourned the matter, after the petitioner was set ex parte. In this regard, it needs to be observed that the proceedings before an inquiry officer cannot be compared to those, before the Courts of law. Further, there is no provision in law, which requires even a Court of Law, to adjourn the matter after one of the parties is set ex parte. At any rate, the contention of the petitioner could have been examined with sympathy, if only he attended the inquiry on earlier stages, and was handicapped from appearing before the 6th respondent, on account of an unforeseen reason. The attitude of the petitioner is one, of the defiance, at every stage. The 6th respondent submitted his report on 11-03-1999, finding that, all the charges against the petitioner are proved. The Disciplinary Authority took the same into account and passed order dated 22-03- 1999, dismissing the petitioner from service. It was clearly observed that the petitioner did not make any written submissions on the inquiry report. The Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal. Since one of the principal grievances of the petitioner was that he was not given an opportunity by the respondents-Corporation, to submit his objections to the inquiry report, this Court passed an interim order, way back on 09-01-2003, directing that it shall be open to he petitioner to submit his objections or remarks to the report of the Inquiry Officer, and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh, notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition. It is reported that the petitioner did not avail this opportunity and did not submit any representation to the Disciplinary Authority. This only shows that the petitioner consistently refused to participate in the proceedings at every stage. In a way, he did not leave any other alternative, before the Corporation. The petitioner occupied very important position in the organization. He was supposed to be a model for others, to emulate. Instead, he not only failed to comply with the requirements under the regulations, but also has exhibited defiance at every level. He wanted to push all his acts and omissions under the carpet of the alleged prejudice of the 4th respondent against him. Even assuming that the 4th respondent was, in any way, inimically disposed against the petitioner, the conduct of the petitioner subsequent to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings belies that contention. So far as the submission made as regards the proportionality or otherwise of the punishment is concerned, this Court is reluctant to entertain the same. The reason is that, once a charge is proved against the employee, this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the proportionality of the punishment, except in very rare cases, where the charge itself is trivial, and very severe punishment is imposed. The charges framed against the petitioner cannot be said to be trivial. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15-07-2010. KO