Facing Suspension and Dismissal: Seeking Guidance on My Case with the Textiles Committee

My employer is the Textiles Committee, which is a Body Corporate functioning under the administrative control of the Government of India, Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi. Its headquarters is in Mumbai. I had been working as a Field Officer at its Kolkata Regional Office and was dismissed. I need urgent guidance on the following points and would appreciate your advice on whether they are correct.

Suspension Order Issuance

1. The Competent Authority, i.e., the Secretary, from its Head Office in Mumbai, signed and issued a Suspension Order against me on Saturday, 04-11-1995, which was officially a closed holiday. As all the offices of the Textiles Committee's Head Office and all the Regional Offices, including the Kolkata Regional Office, were closed on that Saturday, it was not possible to sign and issue the said Suspension Order with immediate effect. The Suspension Order stated that a disciplinary proceeding had been 'contemplated', as per the Textiles Committee's Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1986. However, no domestic inquiry was either contemplated or concluded within 9 months of suspension.

Delivery of Suspension Order

2. The said Suspension was not directly sent to me by post; instead, it was given to me by my Kolkata RO Head. I suspect that the Kolkata RO Head might have forged the Secretary's signature, as the Secretary could not have signed it in Mumbai on a closed holiday.

Lack of Preliminary Investigation

3. There was no Preliminary Investigation before or after the suspension. No specific reason for the suspension was provided to me for around 14 months to exercise my right to appeal, as the suspension is appealable.

Revocation and Charge Sheet

4. After around 14 months of suspension, it was revoked on 08-01-1997 with a major penalty Charge Sheet Memorandum dated 08-01-1997. On the same day of the suspension revocation order, one of the Relied Upon Documents was issued and authored by the Secretary, who had no jurisdiction to issue a major charge sheet to me, as per the rules.

Domestic Inquiry Concerns

5. In the domestic inquiry, they shielded all the authors of the Relied Upon Documents from being inquired. Kindly guide me.

From the narration of facts, it appears to be a peculiar case, and some more facts are needed. Yet, certain clarifications are made.

1. Merely because the suspension order was issued on a closed holiday does not invalidate it in any manner. There is no limit laid down anywhere that a suspension order cannot be issued on a non-working day. Circumstances have to indicate why there was such a tearing hurry to immediately issue it; otherwise, it is indicative of malfeasance and bias.

2. The suspension order handed over by the Calcutta RO Head is not improper as you would have been administratively under his control. So instead of sending the suspension by post, it was routed through the Calcutta RO Head; there is nothing wrong with it.

3. A Preliminary Investigation is not a must before and after the suspension. Where the facts are complicated and to collect the material particulars required for drafting the charge sheet, the preliminary inquiry is held. It is not necessary to involve the delinquent employee at this stage.

4. You say the Secretary is not empowered to issue the Charge sheet for a major penalty, though he has the power to suspend you. This is a basic point that goes to the root of the case. Although there are some judgments that say that even if the charge sheet is issued by a subordinate authority, if the punishment is issued by the competent authority, then there is no defect in the process. It is said that a document that is being relied upon against you, issued on the date of the charge sheet, shows that the whole process is an abuse of the rules against you. This is a substantial ground for the courts to interfere.

5. This point is not clear. If the authors of the documents are not produced in the inquiry, then there is no primary evidence led to prove the documents. Secondary evidence cannot have the same weightage, and the evidence is highly suspect, particularly when such authors are available but are being shielded from the cross-examination process. You should lead evidence and bring these facts on record.

The very fact that the matter is pending for nearly 25 years puts a serious question mark on the genuineness of the disciplinary action. As a general principle, this definitely looks like a weak case from the organization's side, and you may seek legal remedy by way of a writ petition before the concerned High Court.