Case: Employers Of Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. Ltd Vs. Their Workmen

record or the facts are admitted. In such a case it may be permissible to draw the attention of the delinquent to the evidence on the record which goes against him and which if he cannot satisfactorily explain must lead to a conclusion of guilt. In certain cases it may even be fair to the delinquent to take his version first so that the enquiry may cover the point of difference and the witnesses may be questioned properly on the aspect of the case suggested by him. It is all a question of justice and fairplay. If the second procedure leads to a just decision of the disputed paints and is fairer to the delinquent than the ordinary procedure of examining evidence against him first, no exception can be taken to it. It is, however, wise to ask the delinquent whether he would like to make a statement first or wait till the evidence is over but the failure to question him in this way does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is caused. It is only when the person enquired against seems to have been held at a disadvantage or has objected to such a course that the enquiry may be said to be vitiated. It must, however, be emphasised that in all cases in which the facts in controversy are disputed the procedure ordinarily to be followed is the one laid down by this Court in the cited cases. The procedure of examining the delinquent first may be adopted in a clear case, only.As illustration we may mention one such case which was recently before us. There a bank clerk had allowed over-drafts to customers much beyond the limits sanctioned by the bank. The clerk had no authority to do so. Before the enquiry commenced he admitted his fault and asked to be excused. He was questioned first to find out if there were any extenuating circumstances before the formal evidence was led to complete the picture of his guilt. We held that the enquiry did not offend any principles of natural justice and was proper (See Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, Civil Appeal No. 440 of 1966, D/- l8-8-1967 : (AIR 1968 SC 266 ). 10. In the present case Subramaniam had complained earlier that his version ought to have been elicited first before enquiry against him was ordered. This is exactly what was done by the enquiring officer. We had the whole of Subramaniams statement read to us and found nothing which we can say was unfair. The enquiring officer gave him an interpreter after ascertaining if he had any objection to the person selected, asked him to reply in English or Telugu as he preferred, invited him to call some workman to assist him, asked him the names of the witnesses he wished to examine and whether he wanted any further time for the preparation of his defence. He was then questioned about the loading of tyres in his van, the invoices he had signed and whether he had checked the tyres loaded. He was next asked what route he had followed, whether there was a chance of pilferage en route and whether he suspected any person of having interfered with the van. He was also asked if he was present when the stock was checked. He denied certain details of this stock taking. The issue was thus narrowed to the fact whether 8 tyres were loaded or 6, it being the case of the Company that 8 tyres were loaded and that of Subramaniam that only 6 tyres were loaded, but his receipt for 8 tyres was obtained. The witnesses who loaded the tyres were then called and were examined searchingly by the Presiding Officer and cross-examined by Subramaniam.No doubt some of the questions appeared to be leading but they were respecting the matter of record and too much legalism cannot be expected from a domestic enquiry of this character.The officer asked Subramaniam again and again whether he was defending himself properly or not and Subramaniam always expressed his satisfaction. 11. In these circumstances, we do not see how the enquiry can be said to have offended any principle of natural justice at all. The Tribunal mechanically applied the dicta of this Court without noticing that the facts here were entirely different from those in the cited cases and the observations covered those cases where all or most of the facts were contested and could not be made applicable to cases where a greater part of the evidence was a matter of written record and the difference was narrow. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the enquiry was properly conducted. As to the evidence of Das it is obvious that Das was supporting Subramaniam in his statement that no tyres were lost during the journey which supported the version that 6 tyres instead of 8 were actually loaded. It is curious that Das never left the van even when Subramaniam went out and on the solitary occasion when Das left the van Subramaniam was in the company of another officer of the Company at the Depot. The evidence of Subramaniam and Das taken together excludes the possibility of loading of 8 tyres. And this is how Das comes into the picture. It is obvious that the enquiring officer and the Manager relied upon the evidence of those who loaded the tyres supported as it was by the admission several times repeated by Subramaniam that he had checked the tyres at the time of loading. In other words, the Management refused to believe Subramaniam even though he was supported by Das. This the Management was entirely within its right in doing and the Tribunal was in error in exercising appellate powers by coming to a different conclusion. All that the Tribunal could do was to see that the enquiry was properly conducted. As in our opinion the enquiry was so conducted the decision of the Tribunal cannot be supported.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It has tried to meet each of the grounds and in our opinion successfully. We shall take these grounds one by one and indicate the submissions which in our opinion must be allowed to prevail.As regards ground No. (a) it is clear to us that, although it may he desirable to call for such an explanation before serving a charge-sheet there is no principle which compels such a course. The calling for an explanation can only be with a view to making an enquiry unnecessary, where the explanation is good but in many cases it would be open to the criticism that the defence of the workman was being fished out. If after a preliminary enquiry there is prima facie reason to think that the workman was at fault, a charge-sheet setting out the details of the allegations and the likely evidence, may be issued without offending against any principle of justice and fairplay.This is what was done here and we do not think that there was any disadvantage to the workmanIn these circumstances, it is hardly possible to say that the workman was at a disadvantage in any wayGround No. (c) was not a ground of complaint before the Tribunal. This ground was made out by the Tribunal. In fact these statements were not included in the record of the enquiry. Nor were they made the basis of any conclusion. As to ground No. (d) it is sufficient to say that the minutes were hardly needed as the workman was present personally and had conducted the defence. If he needed to read the record he could have easily asked for an inspection and we have no doubt in our mind that he would have been given such an inspection. The minutes show an utmost consideration at all stages of the need for a proper defence.The Tribunal equated the domestic enquiry to enquiries under Art. 311 of the Constitution which was hardly proper8. It seems to us that the enquiries officer afforded every opportunity to Subramaniam to controvert or prove his caseSubramaniam was informed of the charge very clearly, the witnesses were examined in his presence and he was allowed to cross-examine them fully. A true record was kept. He was given an opportunity to lead evidence and the enquiry officer and the manager gave him a full chance to explain, after apprising him in detail of the findings tentatively reached. The evidence of Das was not dealt with in detail but as Das was not concerned with the loading operation and his evidence was not apparently accepted that Subramaniam had not removed the tyres. Das was apparently taken to support Subramaniams claim that the tyres were not loaded at all, a conclusion not reached by the management on evidence10. In the present case Subramaniam had complained earlier that his version ought to have been elicited first before enquiry against him was ordered. This is exactly what was done by the enquiring officer. We had the whole of Subramaniams statement read to us and found nothing which we can say was unfair. The enquiring officer gave him an interpreter after ascertaining if he had any objection to the person selected, asked him to reply in English or Telugu as he preferred, invited him to call some workman to assist him, asked him the names of the witnesses he wished to examine and whether he wanted any further time for the preparation of his defence. He was then questioned about the loading of tyres in his van, the invoices he had signed and whether he had checked the tyres loaded. He was next asked what route he had followed, whether there was a chance of pilferage en route and whether he suspected any person of having interfered with the van. He was also asked if he was present when the stock was checked. He denied certain details of this stock taking. The issue was thus narrowed to the fact whether 8 tyres were loaded or 6, it being the case of the Company that 8 tyres were loaded and that of Subramaniam that only 6 tyres were loaded, but his receipt for 8 tyres was obtained. The witnesses who loaded the tyres were then called and were examined searchingly by the Presiding Officer and cross-examined by Subramaniam.No doubt some of the questions appeared to be leading but they were respecting the matter of record and too much legalism cannot be expected from a domestic enquiry of this character.The officer asked Subramaniam again and again whether he was defending himself properly or not and Subramaniam always expressed his satisfaction11. In these circumstances, we do not see how the enquiry can be said to have offended any principle of natural justice at all. The Tribunal mechanically applied the dicta of this Court without noticing that the facts here were entirely different from those in the cited cases and the observations covered those cases where all or most of the facts were contested and could not be made applicable to cases where a greater part of the evidence was a matter of written record and the difference was narrow. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the enquiry was properly conducted. As to the evidence of Das it is obvious that Das was supporting Subramaniam in his statement that no tyres were lost during the journey which supported the version that 6 tyres instead of 8 were actually loaded. It is curious that Das never left the van even when Subramaniam went out and on the solitary occasion when Das left the van Subramaniam was in the company of another officer of the Company at the Depot. The evidence of Subramaniam and Das taken together excludes the possibility of loading of 8 tyres. And this is how Das comes into the picture. It is obvious that the enquiring officer and the Manager relied upon the evidence of those who loaded the tyres supported as it was by the admission several times repeated by Subramaniam that he had checked the tyres at the time of loading. In other words, the Management refused to believe Subramaniam even though he was supported by Das. This the Management was entirely within its right in doing and the Tribunal was in error in exercising appellate powers by coming to a different conclusion. All that the Tribunal could do was to see that the enquiry was properly conducted. As in our opinion the enquiry was so conducted the decision of the Tribunal cannot be supported.