K.V. SEETHARAMAIAH
“Mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place proof even in domestic countries”, says the Calcutta High Court. It is true all that appears is not true. Charges based on suspicion will fail to stand the test of legal scrutiny. This observation by a Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee of the High Court has come in a writ petition challenging an order of the Tribunal passed in the original application filed by a man who was removed from the service by a society. Suspicion is not evidence. Charges must be clear-cut and unambiguous even in domestic enquiries. While delinquent employees must be necessarily punished, innocent employees should not be harassed. Even when the enquiry findings show that they are not guilty of the charges framed against them, such employees undergo mental agony, incur enormous money expenditure for getting the required supporting documents to prove innocence. Even to procure these documents, the employees facing enquiry shell out heavy amount towards the charges for documents. The Enquiry officers conducting enquiry must be well-versed in the subject involved in the case. If the Enquiry officers lack good knowledge about the subject or cannot understand the nature of guilt narrated in the charge sheet, there will be miscarriage of justice. That should not happen. Besides good knowledge about the case, an enquiry officer should have patience to hear and understand the case. Time lost in hearing the case matter thoroughly is no waste of time. But the yawning gulf between one date of hearing to another kills the future of employees. Inquiry proceedings have to be completed and report submitted within the stipulated time. Prolonged enquiry and delay in submission of reports would have the telling effect on the future of the employees facing the enquiry. Their promotional prospects are retarded. In some cases, the employees are denied of their promotions if the inquiry is not completed and report is submitted. Experience shows while issuing show-cause notices and framing charges, in most of the cases copy and paste is made. The charges framed should have relevance to the misconduct of the employees. If the charges framed and the violation of rules cited in charge sheets are wrong and contradict to each other, even an employee deserving to be punished goes scot-free. Not adequate thought is being given to the applicability of the rules mentioned in the show-cause notices or charge sheets allegedly violated by the employees. Because of it, many cases fall flat. Just as the punishment to the innocent employees is to be avoided, punishment to the guilty employees must not be missed. In other words, punishment to the innocent employees is as bad as no punishment to the delinquent employees. The authorities issuing charge sheets should apply their mind before signing the order of the charge sheet put up by their subordinates/case workers. More often than not, the rules quoted in show-cause notices allegedly violated by the employees will be different that cited in the charge sheets. Consistency is found to be lacking in many cases. It is not enough if show cause notices are issued before instituting inquiry. The reply given to the notices must be properly studied by the officers without solely depending upon their case workers. If the replies given by the employees are satisfactory and found to be correct, the move for instituting inquiry should be dropped. Enquiry has to be instituted if only the reply is not satisfactory. At the same time, the officers should give in writing as to why the reply given is not satisfactory. If the reply is satisfactory, any move to institute inquiry should be dropped. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has given a ruling that even an employee on a contract cannot be terminated without allowing a hearing (Cause title: S B T S Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. Neutral Citation: APHCO10123642024). But largely, a number of contract employees have faced termination and have been facing termination from service just by an oral order of his controlling officers. There is no job security for them. Salary payment is made through the contractors to them. The principal employer takes the services of the employees taken through the contractor. In practice, the contract employee is thrown out not just for misconduct but even when personal animosity develops between the officer and the employee and between the contractor and the employee. There is absolutely no job security. But to be frank, in many offices, it is the contract employees who work hard and discharge their duties faithfully. Regular employees often free themselves by entrusting the work to the contract employees since a contract employee cannot refuse to take the responsibility for fear of losing the job. If the verdict of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is implemented, employees on contract basis can shed fear of losing the job at the drop of a hat.
