2018 LLR 417
Karnataka High Court
Hon’ble Mr. R.S. Chauhan, J.
W.P. No. 49034/2017 (S-DE), D/-20-11-2017
Krishnappa M.
vs.
Bharat Electronics Ltd.
A. Suspension – Protected workman – Justification of – Admission of his signature by petitioner on 3 letters establishes intimate connection between petitioner and forged letters – However, the Commissioner’s office has denied the signature of recipient and seal on the office contained in these letters – Non-suspension of petitioner may derail the departmental enquiry since the petitioner is a influential union office bearer – Hence, suspension of petitioner is justified. Para 19
B. Union Office Bearer – Leadership qualities – Crucial role model – Forging documents is playing fraud with Company’s business – Petitioner being working President of the Trade Union is to play crucial role model for the workers as a symbol of integrity, honesty, hard work and a person who respects the law – He, in fact, has committed an act which is ‘subversive of the discipline in the establishment’. Paras 9 and 22
C. Misconduct – Forging documents – Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with an intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery as per Section 463 of I.P.C. – Essential is intent to cause damage or injury and it is not essential that actual loss should be caused. Paras 18 and 19
D. Interpretation – Word “Any Law” – Would have to be necessarily given a liberal interpretation as the laws applicable to the management and workers of an establishment and not merely the labour/service laws, including Indian Penal Code. Para 21
E. Show Cause Notice – When can be challenged under writ jurisdiction – If show cause notice has been issued by an Authority not competent to do so or beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority. Para 15
F. Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction – Challenge to show cause notice – A show cause notice does not infringe a Civil or a fundamental right of a person – Not maintainable being premature. Para 15
For Petitioner: Mr. D.R. Ravishankar for Mr. Leelakrishnan, D., Advocate.
For Respondent: Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINTS
• Admission of signature on 3 letters whereas the Commissioner’s office has denied the signature of recipient and seal of the office contained in these letters, establishes that these documents are forged one.
• Suspension of an employee who has been charged with the misconduct of forgery is justified since non-suspension of that employee may derail the departmental enquiry.
• A Trade Union Office bearer or leader is expected to have leadership qualities since he is to play a crucial role model for workers as a symbol of integrity, honesty, hard work and a person who respects the law.
• Forging documents is playing fraud with Company’s business, an act which is ‘subversive of the discipline in the establishment’.
• Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with an intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery as per Section 463 of I.P.C.
• Essential is intent to cause damage or injury by the act of forgery and it is not essential that actual loss have been caused or suffered by the injured.
• In service jurisprudence the word “Any Law” have to be necessarily given a liberal interpretation as the laws applicable to the management and workers of an establishment and not merely the labour/service laws but all laws including Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT
R.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Mr. Krishnappa, M., the Petitioner, has challenged the Charge-sheet-cum-Suspension Order dated 23.9.2017, where by the General Manager (ES), of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent-Company”) has suspended the Petitioner from the post of Junior Section Officer.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Respondent-Company is a Government of India Public Undertaking. Thus, it is an instrumentality of the State. It is, hence, amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. On 1.9.1995, the Petitioner was appointed as a Technician with the Respondent-Company. In 2010, he was promoted on the post of Engineering Assistant. Since he completed his three years Diploma in Mechanial Engineering, in the year 2011, he was promoted to the post of Engineering Assistant- Grade ‘B’. Considering his excellent service record, in July, 2017, he was promoted as Junior Section Officer.
4. During his service tenure, the petitioner was also involved in Trade Union activities of Bharat Electronics Workers’ Unity Forum (the “Trade Union”, for short) on 1.9.1995, he was elected as a Member of the Executive Committee; in 2003, as the Organizing Secretary, in 2009, he was elected as the Joint Secretary, in 2012, as the General Secretary; finally in 2015, as the Working President. Even presently, he continues to hold the post of Working President of the Trade Union. Thus, the Petitioner has risen through the ranks and files of the Trade Union only due to his leadership qualities. As an office bearer of the negotiating Trade Union, the Petitioner has espoused the cause of the Workmen with the Respondent-Company.
5. On 18.6.2015, a Secret Ballot was conducted by the Respondent-Company for identifying the Trade Union/s for collective bargaining. The Trade Union, led by the Petitioner, secured the highest vote. Thus, it was recognised as the negotiating Trade Union for a period of three years. Thus, for any Industrial Dispute which may arise between the Management and the Workmen, the Petitioner, as the Working President, represents the interests and the rights of the Workmen. Therefore, he play a crucial role in securing and maintaining industrial peace and harmony in the establishment.
6. Furthermore, one Mr. K.P. Bheemaiah, a Workman, who was dismissed from the service, challenged his dismissal by filing Writ Petitions before this Court, namely W.P. Nos. 55121-122/2015. In the said Writ Petitions, the General Secretary of the Trade Union, Mr. Annadurai. K, filed an Affidavit, whereby he claimed that the Trade Union had filed three letters under Section 33(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (‘the Act’, for short), before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. However, the learned Labour Commissioner denied having received these three Letters from the Trade Union. Moreover, he alleged that the signature and the seal in the acknowledgement copies of the three Letters do not pertain to his office. Therefore, he claimed that these three Letters, submitted by Mr. Annadurai, were forged.
7. On 23.9.2017, the Petitioner was served with a Charge-sheet-cum-Suspension Order in contemplation of a Disciplinary proceeding. In the Chargesheet, it was alleged that the Petitioner had aided Mr. Annadurai in filling an Affidavit dated 4.4.2017 in the Writ Petition filed by Mr. K.P. Bheemaiah. It was further alleged that he has aided Mr. Annadurai in claiming the three Letters, which were signed by the Petitioner, as duly submitted to the office of the learned Commissioner. However, the learned Commissioner has denied the genuineness of these documents. Therefore, the Petitioner has indulged in fraud, and forgery along with Mr. Annadurai in order to falsely claim the status of “protected Workman” for Mr. Bheemaiah, and to misguide the High Court. According to the Charge-sheet, Petitioner’s acts fall within the definition of ‘misconduct’ as contained in Clauses 15(1)(c), 15(1)(g) & 15(1)(h) of the Standing Orders of the Respondent-Company. Therefore, considering the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct, the Petitioner was suspended from the post of Junior Section Officer. Hence, this Petition before this Court.
8. Mr. D.R. Ravishankar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:
Firstly, drawing the attention of this Court to the Affidavit filed by the Mr. Annadura, the learned Counsel has pleaded that according to Mr. Annadurai, he had received the copies of the three Letters, which were submitted before the learned Commissioner, from a former Secretary in whose custody these letters were kept. At the
relevant time, in the year 2012, 2013 & 2015, the Secretary was Mr. S.T. Narasimha Prasad. Therefore, the source of procuring these three letters is not the Petitioner, but Mr. S.T. Narasmiha Prasad. Hence, the Petitioner has no connection or concern with the alleged forged Letters.
Secondly, since these Letters neither cause any prejudice, nor any loss to the Respondent- Company, the alleged forgery of these Letters does not amount to a misconduct.
Thirdly, mere submission of a Letter for seeking the status of a “protected Workman” under Section 33(3) of the Act does not automatically bestow the said status on any Workmen. In fact, a formal recognition in bestowing of the status is required before the Workman is Treated as a “protected Workman”. Hence, even if these alleged forged letters were submitted before the learned Commissioner, it does not bestow any advantage upon Mr. Bheemaiah, and others, mentioned in the Letters. Thus, no loss is caused to the Respondent-Company.
Fourthly, before suspending an Employee, the Employer is required to consider the remoteness of connection of the Employee with the alleged misconduct, the gravity of the charges, availability of proper and cogent evidence for proving the alleged misconduct, and the consequences of non-suspension of the Employee. However, while passing the impugned Order, the Respondent- Company has ignored these factors. In fact, since the Petitioner has been espousing the interest of the Workmen, the Respondent-Company is misusing its power of suspending an Employee. The said power is being used for oblique motive for disarming and incapacitating the Petitioner form championing the cause of the Workmen. Therefore, the impugned Order is a paradigm example of victimization of the Petitioner.
Fifthly, there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner has committed an act which would fall within the word ‘misconduct’ as enumerated in Clause 15(1)(c)(g) & (h) of the Standing Orders of the Company. For, the Petitioner has neither committed any fraud, nor any dishonesty “in connection with the Companies business”. Moreover, he has not committed “any breach of any law applicable to the establishment”. Furthermore, he has not committed “any act which is subversive of discipline”. Therefore, the charges are not made out against the Petitioner.
Lastly, since the Petitioner is being suspended in order to victimize him, the Suspension Order needs to be interfered with by this Court.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Company, has raised the following contentions:
Firstly, the Respondent has merely issued a Show Cause Notice-cum-Suspension Order to the Petitioner. In the impugned Order, it is clearly stated that the Petitioner is called upon to furnish his explanation as to why Disciplinary action should not be taken against him. While giving reasons for the suspension, the allegations made against the Petitioner have been stated. Thus, the allegations have been brought to his notice for which he is required to give explanation. Therefore, the enquiry is merely contemplated, but has not initiated. Hence, a challenge to a Show Cause Notice is a premature one. Thus, the Writ Petition is not even maintainable.
Secondly, neither the Show Cause Notice, nor the Suspension Order violates any of the Civil rights, or fundamental rights of the Petitioner. For, a Show Cause Notice merely alerts a person about the alleged allegations being made against him/her. The Show Cause Notice also gives an opportunity to an Employee to put forth his defense, and to show reasons as to why a Disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him/her. Moreover, suspension is not a punishment. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is misconceived. It is not maintainable.
Thirdly, the Petitioner is not justified in claiming that he is unrelated to the alleged forged Letters, as he is not the source of procuring the Letters. The Letters have been signed by the Petitioner in his capacity as the General Secretary in the year 2012, 2013 & 2014. Since the learned Commissioner claimed that the signatures of the recipient, and the seal of the office, contained in these letters, did not belong to his office, obviously the Petitioner and Mr. Annadurai entered into a conspiracy to create the forged Letters.
Fourthly, the Petitioner himself admits, both in his reply to the impugned Charge-sheet-cum- Suspension Order, and in the body of Writ Petition, that these Letters have been signed by him, although he claims that the letters are genuine ones. Therefore, he does not deny his signatures on these three Letters. Hence, the Respondent-Company is justified in concluding that the Petitioner, along with Mr. Annadurai, has forged these three Letters in order to benefit Mr. Bheemaiah in his Petition filed before this Court.
Fifthly, the Petitioner is equally unjustified in claiming that these Letters do not cause any prejudice, or loss to the Respondent-Company. After all, the allegedly forged Letters are being used as a weapon against the Respondent-Company while it is engaged in a litigation before this Court. Therefore, these Letters have been submitted with the motive of buttressing the case of Mr. Bheemaiah, and in defeating the stand taken by the Respondent-Company.
Sixthly, although the submission of these letters would not automatically bestow the persons, mentioned therein, with the status of “protected Workmen”, but the stand of the Respondent- Company is not that the letters have been used to gain the said status. Instead, the stand of the Company is that these forged Letters have been submitted by way of evidence before this Court in order to create an impression that Mr. Bheemaiah was bestowed the status of “protected Workman”. This fact has clearly been mentioned in the Affidavit filed by Mr. Annadurai before this Court. Therefore, the Petitioner has indulged in an illegal act of submitting a false evidence before the Court of Law.
Seventhly, the learned Counsel for Petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the illegal act of conspiring for submitting forged Letters does not fall under the misconducts as enumerated, in Clauses 15(1)(c), 15(1)(g) and 15(1)(h) of the Standing Orders of the Respondent-Company. For the words “Company’s business” would also include the right of a Company to defend itself in a litigation. Since a fraud is being played by the Petitioner, and Mr. Annadurai, by allegedly using forged Letters, the Petitioner’s act falls under the word ‘fraud’ in connection with the “Company’s business”. Since fraud is being played with dishonest intention, therefore, the Petitioner’s act also falls under the word ‘dishonesty’ in connection with the “Company’s affair”. Hence, prima facie, the misconduct defined under Clause 15(1) (c) of the Standing Orders of the Respondent-Company is made out.
Similarly, the words “in law”, applicable to the establishment need not be given a narrow inter pretation as limited only to the Industrial/Labour laws. The word ‘in law’ should be interpreted liberally to include the laws which are applicable to the Employees and officers of the establishment. Since the Indian Penal Code would also be applicable to the acts and omissions of the Workmen, the IPC would necessarily have to be brought under the words ‘any law’. Since the Petitioner has allegedly committed the offence of forgery, he has prima facie breached the law applicable to the establishment.
Likewise, considering the fact that the Petitioner is a Working President of the Trade Union, he is a role model for the Workers of the establishment. Therefore, highest integrity, and discipline is expected from the Petitioner. However, by indulging in conspiracy to commit forgery, the Petitioner has committed an act which is “subversive of the discipline in the establishment”. Thus, the Petitioner has prima facie committed misconduct defined under Clause 15(1)(h) of the Standing Orders of the Company.
Lastly, Clause 15(3)(a) of the Standing Orders of the Company empowers the Company to suspend an Employee where a Disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the Employee. The requirements of Clause 15(3)(a) of the Standing Orders of the Respondent-Company are that a Disciplinary proceeding should be contemplated, the Employer should be “satisfied that the Employee should be suspended, the Employer should state his reasons for such a satisfaction in writing, and supply these reasons to the concerned Workman within a period of one week from the date of Suspension. According to the learned Counsel, all these ingredients have been complied with in the present case. Therefore, the Respondent is not only competent to issue the Suspension Order, but has also followed the procedure contained in Clause 15(3)(a) of the Certified Standing Orders. Hence, the Suspension Order is legally valid. Thus, the learned Counsel has supported the impugned Order.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Ravishankar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has pleaded that since the impugned Suspension Order is merely a Show Cause Notice, therefore, the Departmental Inquiry is not even “contemplated” at the present moment. Hence, the Respondent-Company is unjustified in suspending the Petitioner even before the Departmental Enquiry is “contemplated”.
11. Heard the learned Counsel for parties, examined the records submitted along with the Writ Petition, and perused the impugned Order.
12. A bare perusal of the impugned Order clearly reveals that it not only states the reasons for initiating a Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner, but also gives the Petitioner four days time to communicate his explanation and to show-cause as to why Disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Thus, the impugned communication is merely a Show Cause Notice. Although the communication is termed as “Charge-sheet-cum- Suspension Order”, but in its tenor and tone, it is merely a Show Cause Notice. For, formally the charges are yet to be framed. The Respondent is merely contemplating whether to initiate Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner, or not.
13. In the case of Ministry of Defense v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (11) SCC 565, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that “ordinarily, a Charge-sheet, or a Show Cause Notice does not give raise to a cause of action, as it does not amount to Adverse Order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. The right lies when some right of the party is infringed. In fact, the Charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a Final Order imposing punishment, or otherwise adversely affecting the party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a Charge-sheet, or Show Cause Notice in Disciplinary proceedings are not ordinarily be quashed by the Court”.
14. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28.
15. The Petitioner has challenged merely the Show Cause Notice, As observed by the Apex Court above, a Show Cause Notice does not infringe a Civil, or a fundamental right of a person, unless the Show Cause Notice has been issued by an authority not competent to do so, or beyond the jurisdiction of the Authority. However, in the present case, the Petitioner has not raised the pleas that the Show Cause Notice has been issued by an Authority not competent to do so, or issuance of Show Cause Notice is beyond the jurisdiction of the General Manager (ES). Therefore, the impugned Show Cause Notice does not violate the Petitioner’s Civil rights, or fundamental rights. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
16. But, even on merits, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for Petitioner are unacceptable.
17. Although, it is true that according to Mr. Annadurai, he had procured the alleged forged Letters from the former Secretary, Mr. Narasimha Prasad, but the Petitioner has not denied the genuineness of his signatures on these three Letters. In fact, both in his reply to the Show Cause Notice, and in the body of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner admits that the three Letters contain his signatures. Moreover, needless to say, conspiracies are not planned in broad day light. They are hatched behind closed doors. Considering the fact that these three Letters, allegedly forged, were submitted by Mr. Annadurai in a Writ Petition pending before this Court, considering the fact that these letters do contain the Petitioner’s signatures, considering the fact that Mr. Bheemaiah is a Workman, who was dismissed by the Respondent-Company, considering the fact that a litigation was pending between Mr. Bheemaiah and the Respondent-Company, the Petitioner cannot brush aside his connection with these three Letters, prima facie it does seem that, in order to help Mr. Bheemaiah in his litigation, a conspiracy may have been hatched between Mr. Annadurai, and the Petitioner to create Letters, signed by the Petitioner, and to claim before this Court that the said Letters were duly submitted before the learned Commissioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel for Petitioner is unjustified in claiming that there is no co-relation between the Petitioner and the allegedly forged letters, as he is not the source of these Letters.
18. Although the learned Counsel for Petitioner has pleaded that these letters neither cause prejudice, nor cause any loss to the Respondent- Company, but the said argument only has to be uttered, to be rejected. For, the law does not merely prohibit commission of an offence, but also inhabits an attempt to commit an offence. Since allegedly a false evidence has been tendered before this Court, a prejudice may be caused, or loss may be caused to the Respondent, in case these letters were acted upon by this Court. Moreover, the argument pre-supposes that forgery is a legal act, and sanctified by law as long as the forgery does not cause prejudice or loss. But such an understanding of law is highly misplaced. The very definition of ’forgery’ contained in Section 463, I.P.C., states that, “whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery”.
19. Therefore, the essence of forgery is the intent to cause damage or injury, or intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed in order to support a claim. Thus, it is not essential that actual prejudice or loss should be caused. What the law prohibits and punishes is the intention to commit fraud, or that the fraud may be committed in order to support a claim or the intention to cause damage, or injury. Considering the fact that allegedly these three Letters do not contain the signature and seal of the office of the Labour Commissioner, considering the fact that these Letters admittedly contain the Petitioner’s signature, considering the fact that these fabricated documents have been submitted to support the claim of Mr. Bheemaiah before this Court, the intention to commit fraud is prima facie present. Therefore, the contention that these documents do not cause any prejudice, or loss to the Respondents is unsustainable.
20. It is true that even if these Letters were submitted before the learned Commissioner, it would not entitle Mr. Bheemaiah to automatically receive the special status of “protected Workman”. It is equally true that an express order has to be passed by the Labour Commissioner bestowing such a status upon Mr. Bheemaiah. But the allegation against the Petitioner is that he has entered into a conspiracy with Mr. Annadurai in order to submit false evidence before this Court. Thus, he is playing fraud with the Company’s business. The words “Company’s business”, cannot be given a restricted meaning. Even contesting of litigation, even protecting the Company’s reputation and functioning, is part of “the Company’s business”. Therefore, to play fraud, or to act in dishonest manner while the Company is in litigation would have to be necessarily brought under the words “Company’s business”. Thus, misconduct defined under Clause 15(1)(c) of the Standing Orders of the Company is prima facie established.
21. The Clause 15(g) of the Standing Orders uses the words “habitual breach of any law applicable to the establishment”. According to the learned Counsel for Petitioner, the Petitioner has not breached any law applicable to the establishment. However, the words “any law” cannot be given a narrow interpretation as meaning merely the labour laws applicable to an establishment. The words “any law” would have to be necessarily given a liberal interpretation as the laws applicable to the Management and Workers of an establishment. Moreover, the Standing Orders and the laws applicable to an establishment do not permit a Workman to commit an act of forgery. Thus, prima facie the Petitioner has committed the misconduct of “breach of law applicable to an establishment” by allegedly creating fake documents.
22. Considering the fact that the Petitioner happens to be the Working President of the Trade Union, he is considered to be role model for the Workers. As the role model, he is duty bound to be a symbol of integrity, honesty, hard work, and a person, who respects the law. The alleged act of creating forged document clearly introduce an element of dishonesty, and indiscipline in his character and personality. Therefore, his alleged act is ”subversive of the discipline” which needs to be maintained amongst the Workmen. Therefore, the misconduct defined under Clause 15(1)(h) of the Standing Order is also prima facie made out against the Petitioner.
23. The learned Counsel for Petitioner has also pleaded that before suspending an Employee, the Employer is bound to consider the remoteness of connection with the alleged misconduct, the gravity of the charges, and the consequence of nonsuspension. But, even if these three tests were applied to the present case, the Petitioner would find
himself on a weak wicket. Since the Petitioner has admitted that the signatures on the alleged forged Letters are his, there is an intimate connection between the Petitioner and the alleged forged Letters. Forgery is not a minor offence. Considering the fact that the Petitioner happens to be the Working President of the Trade Union, the act of forgery undermines the faith between the Workers and the Management. Therefore, the charges leveled against the Petitioner are of grave nature. Furthermore, considering the position that the Petitioner occupies as a Trade Union Leader, he may misuse his clout and power, and influence the Witnesses and tamper with the evidence. If the Petitioner were not suspended, he may derail the Departmental Enquiry, and prevent the Enquiry Officer from discovering the truth. Therefore, the Respondent-Company is legally justified in suspending the Petitioner.
24. If the Petitioner were to be continued on the post of Junior Section Officer, he would continue to act as the Working President of the Trade Union. His continuation would give him ample opportunities for causing industrial disharmony and in disrupting the peace and tranquility of the establishment. The foremost concern of the Labour Law is to maintain, protect, and promote industrial peace and industrial harmony. Anyone, who is likely to disturb the peace and tranquility, likely to adversely affect the efficiency and output of an Industrial Establishment, such a person should be removed immediately. Keeping this aspect in mind, the Respondent is again legally justified in suspending the Petitioner.
25. The learned Counsel for Petitioner has vehemently contended that since the impugned Suspension Order is merely a Show Cause Notice inviting an explanation from the Petitioner for showing cause as to why Departmental Enquiry should riot be initiated against him, therefore, the Departmental Enquiry is not “contemplated” at the moment. Hence, the Respondent No. 1 is not justified in suspending the Petitioner. However, the argument is misplaced. For, contemplation of enquiry does not begin with when the Employer decides to initiate the enquiry. The contemplation of enquiry begins with the very first step of seeking an explanation from a Delinquent Employee. The contemplation of holding an enquiry may be in its embryonic stage, but nonetheless the contemplation has commenced. The contemplation would certainly end with a decision to initiate the Departmental Enquiry. However, even the stage of calling for an explanation, would be the first step for initiating the contemplation. Therefore, the last contention raised by the learned Counsel for Petitioner is clearly untenable.
26. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. It is hereby dismissed.
27. However, by way of abundant caution it is hereby clarified that any observation made by this Court about the Petitioner having committed the alleged misconduct is merely prima facie in nature. Such observations are not to be treated as judicial findings. The Respondent-Company is expected to independently, impartially and objectively decide whether to initiate the Departmental Inquiry against the Petitioner or not. In case a Departmental Inquiry were initiated, the Enquiry Officer is also expected to decide the case impartially and objectively. His decision should not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove. Both the Respondent-Company and the Enquiry Officer should remember that justice should not only be done, but must appear to be done to the Petitioner. No order as to C
