Case: Abha Chawla Mohanty Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited &amp; Others

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed in the Divisional Office No. 4 of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) in the month of October, 1985, upon being selected in the All India Examination for the Post of Assistant Administrative Officer. The petitioner was assigned to the Technical Department. When the departmental action against the petitioner was initiated pursuant to Articles of Charge framed against her dated 8th March, 2004, she was working as Assistant Manager and was posted at M.C.D.O. VI. The Articles of Charge dated 8th March, 2004 readOF CHARGES FRAMEDST. GENERALAUTHORITY3. The said Articles of Charge were accompanied by Statement of Imputation of Misconduct / Misbehaviour in support thereof. The same readsOF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE AGAINST MRS. ABHA C. MOHANTY, ASSISTANT MANAGER, MCDOST. GENERALE IIIMRS.ABHA C. MOHANTY, ASST. MANAGER, MCDO 6 LIST OF DOCUMENTS1. Attendance Register2. File containing various letters written toST. GENERALAUTHORITY4. Later on, the petitioner was served with a letter purportedly to be Addendum todated 8th March, 2004. The same readsE ORIENTAL COMPANYof General Insurance Corporation ofRegional Office No.2, Oriental House, 7thJamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 00x: 2852595,r ServiceMrs. A.C. Mohanty304, Adarsh ApartmentB.D. Ambedkar Marg,Near Bombay DyingSpringMill Compound, Naigaon,Dadar(E), Mumbai 400 014.Madam,RE: Addendum todated 8th March, 2004 issued by Disciplinary Authority, A.G.M. MRO II under rule 25 of General Insurance CDArefer to the Charge Sheet dated 8th March, 2004 issued to you by Disciplinary Authority of MRO II for initiating Departmental Enquiry against you under rule 25 of General Insurance CDA Rules, 1975.We have received your Interim Reply dated 29th March, 2004 to the above referred Charge Sheet. Your Final Reply is still awaited. In case you want to send your Final Reply, if any, the same should be sent to us immediately.Please refer to Annexure III of the above referred Charge Sheet enclosing therewith a file containing various letters addressed to you. In some of the letters addressed to you, specific time span against some dates has been mentioned during which time you were present in the Office. This means that for rest of the time on that particular date, you were absent from the Office. For all such dates against which specific time span has been mentioned in various letters. You were absent for the full day, and accordingly, you are supposed to submit Leave Application for the full day, which please note.Further, you have not attended Office continuously since April, 2004, nor have intimated to the Office the reasons for your absence. Please note absence from Office without prior permission is teated asabsence under CDA rules.We enclose herewith copy of letter dated 1st September, 2004 addressed to you by your MCDO 6 Mumbai.As a matter of natural justice, we again give you an opportunity to submit your Final Reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, before further action is initiated in this matter.ThankingRY AUTHORITY5. The petitioner filed her reply and contested the charges framed against her. According to the petitioner, the charges were trumped up at the behest of her superiors, who were not on good terms with her. The petitioner denied the charges, and claimed that the same were founded on tampered registers / official documents. The petitioner asserted that the Articles of Charge were vague. The petitioner demanded certain documents, which, according to her, were relevant documents, and only upon receipt thereof, she would be in a position to file a meaningful reply to counter the charges framed against her. Besides filing written reply, the petitioner initially participated in the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer appointed for that purpose. The petitioner made application before the Enquiry Officer to allow her to be represented by N.R Mohanty (her husband) as her defence assistant. However, that request was not acceded to and she was left with no other choice but to defend the departmental proceedings on her own. She participated in the enquiry proceedings until 20th September, 2005, but walked out of those proceedings on the ground that the enquiry was not being conducted in a fair manner. The Enquiry Officer, however, proceeded with the enquiry ex parte against the petitioner. The Management produced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the charges framed against the petitioner.6. The Enquiry Officer, on analysing the said evidence produced by the Management, found that the charges as framed against the petitioner are established. The Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 20th January, 2006, in the first place, adverted to the Managements case and the charges framed against the petitioner. He then referred to the documentary evidence produced by the Management, which were in the form of letters issued to the petitioner and the surprise inspection reports given by a team of senior officials of M.R.O.I and II. The Enquiry Officer also noted that the Management examined witness Ms. P. Narayan, Assistant Administrator,to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer noted that the charge framed against the petitioner was in respect of violation of Rules 3, 4 and 18 of the General Insurance CDA Rules, 1975.7. The Enquiry Officer then referred to the defence case as noted in the interim and final replies filed by the petitioner and various written communications, wherein the petitioner denied all the charges leveled against her. The Enquiry Officer then referred to the request of the petitioner to provide her defence assistance, N.R Mohanty (husband of the petitioner). He observed that, at the relevant time, the said N.R Mohanty had becomeand was not in service of respondent No. 1Company. For that reason, as per the rules, he was ineligible to espouse the cause of the petitioner. For, the rules provide that only an employee who is working in the Company within the region can act as the defence assistant. The Enquiry Officer then referred to the request of the petitioner to furnish Internal Audit Reports and Vigilance Check Reports forfor years 2000 to 2004, leave positions as per Self Appraisal Report, part of Confidential Report for years 1999/2000 to 2003/2004, leave record in the prescribed format for years 1999 to 2004, Attendance Registers for the period from 2000 to 8th March, 2004 and copies / clarification of A.A. Hallary. The Enquiry Officer has also noted that the petitioner has tried to defend herself mainly on the ground that the proposed departmental enquiry was initiated against her at the behest of R.C. Shah, who was Manager and superior of the petitioner at the relevant time, as the petitioner had repudiated the docket of his sister, Lata Shah. The Enquiry Officer has noted that the petitioner was provided with the leave records for years 2002 to 2005 andof the relevant extract of Daily Attendance Registers for years 2002 to 2004 as maintained in the D.O. The petitioner was also provided a set of 39 letters, which formed part of Annexure 3 of theHe noted that the said communications, in particular, letter dated 22nd August, 2005, confirmed the stand of the Department that the petitioner had received the communications. The Enquiry Officer noted that other documents demanded by the petitioner were irrelevant and unwarranted qua the charges framed against the petitioner.8. After having analysed the material on record, the Inquiry Officer proceeded to record his findings and conclusion. For considering the grounds of challenge raised in this petition, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same hereunder:Findings: Whenever the CSO absented from the office, she has not supported or given any proof that she informed the office either orally/writing and availed of the leave, i.e. She was absent without any authorization. This continued over a period of 3 years. There were 3 different DO I/Cs and all of them were biased against her is unbelievable. More so, the daily attendance which was not a secret one and all the staff and officers have access to the same. There is no record of any representation/protest from CSO on wrong making of absent/late in the register. The case is supported by the fact that the prosecution witness and as per the practice prevailing in the DO if any one is marked late/absent or any innocent mistake in the leave record, is pointed out/represented is incorrect the same is immediately examined and if found correct is rectified. There is not even a single written representation/protest to that effect by the CSO. Thus, this proves that Incharges were not biased against CSO. It can be safely concluded that charge of unauthorized absence from the office is established i.e. CSO never obtained prior approval for her absence from the office. This is further supported by the facts that there are three surprise inspector reports of independent team consisting officials of both ROs dated 25.11.2002, 27.11.2001 and 10.12.2002.There is enough correspondence on record which proves that she was communicated her absence and was asked to submit the leave applications which she has failed to do that proves that the CSO disobeyed the written orders/instructions of the office. In light of the above, the charge that CSO has committed the act of misconductabsented from the office, habitual later coming/irregular in attendance, absence from the employee appointed place of work without permission. Thus she has willfully unauthorizedly absented herself for a very long period during the period of 3 years i.e. 2002, 20032004. and has exhibited the conduct of disobedience and remained absent without submitting leave applications and has not even given any satisfactory explanation for such acts of commission by the CSO.Conclusion:Thus in light of the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that charges leveled against the CSO are proved.9. On the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the matter was examined by the General Manager and Competent Authority. The Competent Authority agreed with the opinion recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Competent Authority noted that the charges proved against the petitioner were grave in nature. Accordingly, the Competent Authority, vide order dated May 18, 2006, not only upheld the opinion of the Enquiry Officer but proceeded to impose penalty on the petitioner of removal from the services of the Company, which shall not be disqualification for future employment. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the order of the Competent Authority dated May 18, 2006. The same readsMay 18, 2006Ref.No.: HO/Pers/CDA/932WHEREAS Major Penalty Proceedings in terms of Rule 25 of GI [CDA] Rules, 1975 were initiated against Ms Abha C Mohanty, Dy. Manger, vide Charge Sheet dated 08.03.2004 for, while posted at MDO 6, having committed the following acts of misconduct during the years 2002, 20032004:Ms Mohanty is highly irregular in her attendance, remaining absent for several days although no admissible leave was due to her, during the years 2002 to 2004 and she has not submitted leave applications for the same in spite of several letters issued to her. She had also not submitted Medical Certificate for her Maternity Leave. On many days, she used to attend office only for a few hours / minutes and also to come to office late and leave office early at any time of her choice without taking permission.In the past also, a disciplinary action was initiated against her for not submitting leave applications and not refunding excess Travelling Advance drawn by her vide Chargesheet dated 05.07.2000. But Competent Authority had taken a lenient view of the matter.AND WHEREAS Departmental Enquiry was held, Ms. Mohanty left the Enquiry Proceedings on 20.09.2005 and did not participate in the proceedings. Shri N K Saluja, Enquiry Officer has given his findings vide Enquiry Report dated 20.01.2006 that the charges against Ms. Mohanty stands proved. As per procedure a copy of Enquiry Report was sent to Ms. Mohanty on 25.01.2006 for her representation, if any, against the findings of the Enquiry Officer.AND WHEREAS in her reply dated 20.02.2006 Ms. Mohanty has pleaded that the Enquiry Report was corrected by Ms Kala [a prosecution witness], the office has not provided her Internal Audit report, Vigilance Check report of DO 6 for the last five years, leave position appearing in Self Appraisal Form of CR for the last five years and leave record for the past five years, the Charge Sheet was served on her without Annexure III, as per marking in Attendance Register she has been asked to submit leave applications for holidays also, the attendance were manipulated under tenure of Shri Bharat Shah, Shri Naresh KumarShri Halari and the Enquiry Officer has rejected her request to act Shri N R Moyanty [her husband] as her defence Assistant.AND WHEREAS the undersigned being the General Manager and Competent Authority after having gone through the Charge Sheet and other connected records / documents of the case observes that Enquiry Report was not corrected by Ms Kala [prosecution witness] but she has corrected the typing errors in the Minutes of the enquiry proceedings which was duly signed by Enquiry OfficerPresenting Officer. Internal Audit report and Vigilance Check Report has no relevance with her charges, therefore, it was not provided to her. Self Appraisal Form are part and parcel of Confidence Report, which is a privileged document of the company. She was given leave record and attendance sheets for the period covered under the Charge Sheet. Ms Mohanty was made available the documents forming part of Annexure III of the Charge Sheet, when she denied the receipt of the same. She remained on leave /unauthorized absence on preceding and succeeding days to holidays, therefore, as per Rules she has been asked to submit leave applications for such holidays also. It is incorrect to state that attendance were manipulated under the tenure of Shri Bharat Shah, Shri Naresh Kumar and Shri Halari. All Officers have access to the daily attendance sheet, it is not a secret document and she has never pointed out or raised objection that her attendance were marked wrongly. The Enquiry Officer has rightly decided that as per company rules an employee who is working within the region can act as Defence Assistant and disallowed Shri N R Mohanty,to act as her Defence Assistant. Ms Abha Mohanty during the year 2002, 20032004 (31.03.2004) remained on LOP / uauthorised absence fordays which constitutes serious misconduct on her part. The undersigned observes that she was given ample opportunity during course of enquiry to defend her case but she has left the proceedings and did not participate. The undersigned further observes that the charges proved against her are grave in nature and as such the conduct of Ms A C Mohanty is blameworthy.AND THEREFORE, the following penalty is hereby imposed on Ms. Abha MohantyRemoval from the services of the company which shall not be disqualification for future employment.Shri(sic) Abha Mohanty be informedNT AUTHORITY10. Against the said decision of the Competent Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was disposed of by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28th June, 2007. The Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, as also those of the Competent Authority. The Appellate Authority, accordingly, confirmed the penalty imposed by the Competent Authority without any modification thereof. The said order readsJune 18, 2007Ref.No.: HO/Pers/CDA/932 AWHEREAS Major Penalty Proceedings in terms of Rule 25 of GI [CDA] Rules, 1975 were initiated against Ms Abha C Mohanty, Dy. Manger, vide Charge Sheet dated 08.03.2004 for, while posted at MDO 6, having committed the following acts of misconduct during the years 2002, 20032004:Ms Mohanty is highly irregular in her attendance, remaining absent for several days although no admissible leave was due to her, during the years 2002 to 2004 and she has not submitted leave applications for the same in spite of several letters issued to her. She had also not submitted Medical Certificate for her Maternity Leave. On many days, she used to attend office only for a few hours / minutes and also to come to office late and leave office early at any time of her choice without taking permission.In the past also, a disciplinary action was initiated against her for not submitting leave applications and not refunding excess Travelling Advance drawn by her vide Chargesheet dated 05.07.2000. But Competent Authority had taken a lenient view of the matter.AND WHEREAS Departmental Enquiry was held, Ms. Mohanty left the Enquiry Proceedings on 20.09.2005 and did not participate in the proceedings. Shri N K Saluja, Enquiry Officer has given his findings vide Enquiry Report dated 20.01.2006 that the charges against Ms. Mohanty stands proved. Accordingly the General Manager being the Disciplinary Authority imposed the following penalty vide order dated 18.05.2006 as:Removal from the services of the company which shall not be disqualification for future employment.AND WHEREAS Ms. Mohanty has filed an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. She pleads that she was never provided the tabulation of absence of 472 days fromnor the Enquiry Officer put the said dates of absence to scrutiny during the proceedings, that if the charges of absence are as grave why Enquiry Officer did not provide the Audit Report and Vigilance Check Report, that annual leave record from the year 1999 till date has not been provided to her, that order of termination was communicated to her without asking for as Show Cause, that the company had been remitting salary and paid Wages Arrears for the said period.AND WHEREAS the undersigned being theManaging Director and Appellate Authority in the matter after having gone through the Charge Sheet, Enquiry Report, penalty order and appeal of Ms Mohanty observes that she was given ample opportunity during the course of enquiry to defend her case which she failed to do by not participating and leaving the proceedings. Providing her the reports of Vigilance and Internal Audit has no relevance to the charges. She was given Leave Record and photocopies of Attendance Register for the period covered under the Charge Sheet. As regards remittance of salary, till the charge is proved, the Charged Employee continues to be treated as an Employee of the company. Points raised in her Appeal Representation have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and are repetitive in nature. Even after the issuance of Charge Sheet she has not mend (sic) herself and remained on unauthorized absence fordays. The undersigned observes that the charges proved against her are grave in nature.AND THEREFORE the undersigned does not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the same is upheld without any modification.Ms Abha C Mohanty be informedN CUM MANAGINGAUTHORITY11. In view of the order of removal from services, the Estate Officer proceeded with the action of taking back possession of the service quarters occupied by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, that action was also replete withso as to victimise the petitioner, and the petitioner and her family members were thrown out on streets at odd hours.12. As aforesaid, the petitioner has not only challenged the charges framed against her, but also the findings and conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer, as also the decision of the Competent Authority which is founded on the opinion of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by way of present petition.13. In the petition as filed, it is stated by the petitioner that, in or about June, 1989, she was promoted to the Administrative Officer Cadre, and was assigned to the Miscellaneous (Technical) Department in the Regional Office. Her husband was General Secretary of Officers Association. In that capacity, he was spearheading officers grievances and espousing their causes. On one occasion, R.K. Jain,was forced to roll back certainIt is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had repudiated the fraudulent Mediclaim of Ms. Lata Shah, sister of R.C. Shah, Manager (Marketing), who was close to Bharat C. Shah (RegionalThus, out of spite, the said Bharat Shah and R.C. Suri started victimising the petitioner. The petitioner, with a view to avoid continuous harassment at the hands of the said officers, requested for transfer. However, that request was rejected.15. The petitioner further states that she was denied opportunity to take training unlike the other similarly placed officers. Similarly, her option to leave for G.I.C., in year 2001, was not forwarded. Her deductions from salary towards repayment of loan taken from the Credit Society were not made and withheld, causing accumulation of interest and penalty on the loan taken. She was disallowed from signing the register for attendance, while other officers continued to sign the same. She was assured that her attendance would be marked. The Attendance Register and records were not shown to the petitioner, in spite of repeated demands. When this grievance was brought to the notice ofBharat C. Shah, she was assured that needful will be done.16. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was P.F optee from the inception, and had not changed her option. However, behind her back, her option was shown as Pension Optee. As a result, for one full year, her P.F. contribution was not sent to her P.F. Account. Only after the petitioner complained about this to the Personnel Department, remedial steps were taken to restore the correct contribution.17. According to the petitioner, the harassment continued even in April, 2000 whennotice was issued. Besides giving reply to the saidnotice, she requested to transfer her out of Mumbai. Instead, the petitioner receivedalleging that she remained unauthorisedly absent on various dates from 25th May, 1998 to 31st December, 1999. The said charge sheet is in respect of misconduct during earlier period between May,1998 to December, 1999. The charges therein readA.C. Mohanty while posted at MROII as Asstt. Manager has committed the following misconduct during the yearMrs. A.C. Mohanty on her transfer (on promotion) from Indore RO to MRO II took a travelling advance of Rs.However, Mrs. A.C. Mohanty did not submit the T.E. Bill and did not get the amount adjusted for almost a period of 16 months from the date of her joining duties at MRO II (i.e. on 25.5.98) in spite of various reminders to do so. As per Rules in vogue as regards Advances, an employee has to submit the T.E. Bill within 7 days from the date of resuming of duties. However, Mrs. A.C. Mohanty submitted the bill only on 30.6.99. After scrutiny, the same was finally settled for Rs.19,062/and the balance of Rs.10,938/was ultimately deposited by her on 01.10.99. Thus Mrs. A.C. Mohanty is deemed to have misappropriated the Companys funds to the extent of Rs.10,938/for a period of 16 months.2) Further, Mrs. A.C. Mohanty has remained unauthorisedly absent on various dates from 25.5.98 to 31.12.99 whilst posted at MRO II. She has also not submitted leave applications for the various dates of her absence in spite of various reminders given to her by the Controlling Office.Mrs. A.C. Mohanty has thereby, committed the Misconduct of Misappropriation of Companys funds, remaining willfully on unauthorized absence, disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of her superiors, exhibited conduct unbecoming of a public servant, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (iii), (iv) and Rule 4 (5) (7) (8) (17) and 18 (1) (2) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (Amended).Head Office. GENERALAUTHORITY18. The petitioner contested the proceedings, pointing out that the charges framed against her were trumped up and concocted one. The enquiry, however, was later on dropped. The Disciplinary Authority in its order noted that it was taking a lenient view, and the petitioner was merely cautioned to be careful in future. According to the petitioner, this was notwithstanding the clear circumstances prevailing that no case could be made out against the petitioner. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated January 17, 2001. The same readsOriental Insurance CompanyHouse P.B. No.Asat Ali Road, New DelhiDeptt. PersonnelRef. HO/Pers/CDA/555.17th January, 2001.Ms. A.C. Mohanty,Assistanthas reference to thedated 6.7.200 and your reply dated 6.10.2000 together with enclosures. I have gone through the same and observe that you have admitted not being diligent in submission of bills in time and also the leave applications for your absence. However, in view of the circumstances explained in your letter, the undersigned is inclined to take the lenient view of the matter and you are hereby cautioned to be careful in future in adhering to the Rules and Regulations of thet. Genl. Manager.

Court's reasoning:
40. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner that she has been denied opportunity of taking defence assistance, it is contended by the respondents that her request to allow her to appoint N.R. Mohanty (her husband) as defence assistant was not permissible. In that, as per Rule 25(6) of the G.I.C. D.A. Rules, 1975, the charged officer can nominate only an employee of the Company to be his Defence Assistant. Her husband, after acceptance of his resignation, becameof the Company, and, therefore, could not have been appointed as Defence Assistant of thea result, the same cannot be taken into account. The respondents also contend thatof any remark in the salary slip or leave record will not militate against the respondents. Those documents, however, will be of no avail to the petitioner to contend that she authorisedly remained absent from the office during the relevant period.42. Even the grievance of the petitioner that no personal hearing was given to her by the Competent Authority or the Appellate Authority has been refuted by the respondents. According to the respondents, there is no provision in the Rules to provide personal hearing to the delinquent officer before the Competent Authority or the Appellate Authority. Thus, there is no infraction of any procedure prescribed by thefact, the petitioner was hopeful that the advocate would take further steps after the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition; but, for reasons best known to him, the petitioner had to fend for herself. Eventually, the petitioner, having realised that the matter was not being properly pursued by her advocate, filed the present writ petition in person. In thethe petitioner has made allegations against her former advocate. It is not necessary for us to examine those allegations. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner did challenge thet and orders by way of writ petition, which was withdrawn with liberty to file the present petition. The present petition has been filed pursuant to the said liberty. It is true that the petitioner took almost one year for filing the present writ petition. Nevertheless, in view of the explanation offered in thein our view, it will not be proper tothe petitioner on this technical ground, who has approached this Court for enforcement of her fundamental rights. In the circumstances, we are inclined to reject the preliminary objection about the maintainability of writ petition on the ground of laches. Instead, we would prefer to examine the matter onas, the present petition emanates from the Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner for having remained unauthorisedly absent for several days during years 2002 to 2004. A bare perusal of the Articles of Charges, the case made out against the petitioner was that she was highly irregular in her attendance during the stated period. She remained absent for several days, though no admissible leave was due to her during the relevant period between 2002 and 2004. She did not submit leave applications for the leave period, that, too, in spite of several letters issued to her to do so. She did not submit Medical Certificate for her Maternity Leave within the prescribed time. On many occasions, she used to attend office only for a few hours / minutes and also used to come to office late and leave office early at any time she liked, without taking permission of her superiors.Furthermore, we find force in the opinion recorded by the Authorities below that it is too much to complain that all the three officers, under whom, the petitioner had to work during the relevant period of three years between 2002 to 2004, were biased against her. It is not the case of the petitioner that other superior officers, under whom, the petitioner had to work during the relevant period, had any bias against her. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to reject the argument of the petitioner that the charges framed against her, which areof challenge in this petition, were either trumped up or the same are vitiated, being mala fide and colourable exercise of power by the Authorityconjoint reading of Articles of Charges and the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct in support of the Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner, it is amply clear that the same mention about the unauthorised absence of the petitioner between (i) January, 2003 to March, 2003, (ii) 2nd March, 2003 to 15th October, 2003 and (iii) 17th October, 2003 till 8th November, 2004. It is not as if no period of absence has been spelt out in the charges and the Statement of Imputation. Thus, the petitioner could have filed reply to deny the said allegation and also assert that she was, in fact, present and worked during the said period, or that she remained absent after taking permission / sanction of the Appropriate Authority either for the entire period or part thereof, as the case maythe petitioner has not substantiated that defence in the disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner, in fact, walked out of the disciplinary enquiry, albeit under protest. We are in agreement with the argument of the respondents that, if the delinquent officer walks out of the enquiry proceedings without a just cause, it is not open to him to complain about the reasonable opportunity not afforded to him in the said enquiry. This position isis well established position that in a domestic inquiry, once a conclusion is deduced from the evidence, it is not possible to assail that conclusion even though it is possible for the Court to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence. (See the Banaras Electric LightPower Co.Ltd. vs. The Labour Court II Lucknow72 LAB I.C. 939 (V 5 C 182) (parabecause such condition has been mentioned in the communication sent by the Enquiry Officer that, by itself, does not mean that the Enquiry Officer intended to deny benefit of defence assistance to the petitioner. All that the Enquiry Officer conveyed was that theofficer of the department, in which N.R. Mohanty was working, should consent to relieve him, whenever required for the purpose of enquiry. That would have ensured uninterrupted progress of the enquiry and avoidable adjournment on the ground ofof the Defence Assistant. To get over this, it was argued that, to ensure that the petitioner does not get defence assistance of N.R. Mohanty (her husband), the resignation papers submitted by him as back as in year 2002 were hurriedly accepted on 23rd August, 2005. Because, on acceptance of his resignation papers, he would cease to be the employee of theIn that case, he would be ineligible to represent the case of the petitioner, by virtue of Rule 25 of the Rules. In the first place, there can be no doubt that, as per Rule 25 of the Rules, only employees of thein the region can represent the delinquent officer as Defence Assistant. With acceptance of resignation papers of the petitioners husband on 23rd August, 2005, in fact and in law, he would cease to be employee of theThus, as per Rule 25, N.R Mohanty was ineligible to represent the petitioner as Defence Assistant. The fact that acceptance of resignation of N.R Mohanty coincided in August, 2005, cannot be the basis to assume that the same was hastily accepted to deny defence assistance to the petitioner. Besides, the Enquiry Officer had made it clear that the petitioner was free to nominate any other eligible person of her choice as Defence Assistant. That opportunity was not availed by the petitioner, for reasons best known to her. In our opinion, therefore, the argument of the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated on the ground that the petitioner has been denied defence assistance cannot beis seen that the petitioner received letter dated 13th July, 2005 on 15th July, 2005, as is apparent from her signature bearing on the copy of letter dated 13th July, 2005. The attendance sheets were proved through the Management witness. It has also been found, as of fact, by the two Authorities below, that the petitioner was furnished with the documents forming part of Annexure III of theIt has also been found that internal audit report and vigilance check report, which were insisted by the petitioner, have had no relevance with herthe petitioner was given leave record and attendance sheets for the period covered under theas has been found by the Authorities below. Those were the relevant documents either to rebut the charges framed against the petitioner or to substantiate her defence that she was, in fact, attending office regularly and punctually, and that, whenever she was on leave, her leave was duly sanctioned / approved.As aforesaid, the evidence on record establishes that the petitioner did not submit any representation/protest or for that matter, leave applications for the relevant period, that, too, in spite of repeated letters sent to her to do so. The Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority has upheld the said findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the proved uncontroverted evidence on record. That finding of fact is unassailable. Suffice it to observe that the stated documents not supplied to the petitioner, have been rightly held to be not relevant qua the charges framed against her nor useful to substantiate the defence. Theof any document, by itself, is not enough to vitiate the enquiry proceedings. The document should be such that it is indispensable and without which the charge could not have been proved or, for that matter, the defence available to the delinquent officer could be rebutted. Only in that eventually,of the document may cause serious prejudice or miscarriage of justice. In the present case, for the reasons recorded hitherto, it is not possible to hold that the documents referred to by the petitioner were such that it would have caused any prejudice to the petitioner in pursuing her defence that she, in fact, attended the office during the relevant period regularly and punctually or that she was on leave with permission / sanction of the Appropriate Authority. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated due toof certain documents will have to be stated to belegal evidence is brought to our notice to suggest that this finding of fact is perverse or error apparent on the face of the record. Besides, it is noticed that the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry as per the norms, and more so, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, who, in fact, squandered that opportunity by abruptly walking out of the enquiry proceedings. Thus understood, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain about the fairness of the enquiry and more so, any irregularity therein, which, however, does not vitiate the entirehas been noticed earlier, grievance of the petitioner about bias was against specific officers. However, during the relevant period between 2002 and 2004, the petitioner worked under three different set of superior officers, and it is not the case of the petitioner that even those superior officers or any one of them was biased against her.The fact that, soon after the impugned removal order was passed by the Competent Authority against the petitioner, the Estate Officer proceeded in the matter also cannot be the basis to assume that the charge as framed and established against the petitioner is untenable. The opinion of the Enquiry Officer having found favour with the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, it is not possible to lightly brush aside the said finding on the basis of conjectures and surmises. As has been noted earlier, we are inclined to hold that the Enquiry Officer gave sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself. It is the petitioner who failed to avail of that opportunity. She did not appoint some other person of her choice as her defence assistant. She did notthe prosecution witnesses, as also failed to produce her own evidence to substantiate her defence. Instead, she chose to abruptly walk out of the enquiry proceedings. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner that there has been unfair enquiry against her or that the enquiry was vitiated because it proceeded ex parte against her is devoid ofthe impugned removal order has been rightly passed by the General Manager, the Chairman, being the superior authority, would obviously be the Appellate Authority. In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the grievance that the impugned removal order has been passed by officer, who was not competent to pass the same, or, for that matter, the Chairman of the Company was not competent to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the General Manager and Competentvalidity of that Rule is not under challenge. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority cannot be faulted for not affording oral hearing to the petitioner before deciding the appeal. Even if we were to accept the argument that oral hearing should have been given to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, since the petitioner has approached this Court and has urged all questions on merits and invited decision thereon, the said irregularity committed by the Appellate Authority cannot take the matter any further for the petitioner.62. That takes us to the last aspect, on the quantum of punishment. Once it is held that the charges as framed against the petitioner have been duly established, it would necessarily follow that the petitioner was guilty of a serious misconduct. The penalty for such serious misconduct, as provided in the extant Regulations, is of removal from the services of the respondent Company. The Competent Authority has precisely imposed that penalty against the petitioner, i.e., removal from the services of the Company, which shall not be disqualification for future employment. Considering the seriousness of the charges proved against the petitioner, we do not think that the said punishment is excessive. It isposition that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Authority competent to impose punishment.That takes us to the grievance of the petitioner that she, along with her family members, has been dispossessed from the service quarters in amanner, for which, she should be compensated by way of damages. Having gone through the pleadings on record, we do not intend to traverse this ground in detail. Considering the fact that the petitioner was evicted from the service quarters only after the Appropriate Authority affirmed the penalty of removal from services after following the necessary procedure, it is not possible to find fault with the action of dispossession. It is noticed, the petitioner resorted to proceedings before the City Civil Court against the action of dispossession. As the dispossession was resorted to by following procedure established by law, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain about prejudice caused to her because of dispossession so as to claim damages and compensation from the Company for such dispossession. Accordingly, even this relief does not commend to us.