Lagatar24 Desk
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the dismissal of T. Nayak, a woman employee of Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), Jadugoda, and set aside the order of the Central Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, which had declared her dismissal illegal and directed her reinstatement with full back wages and other financial benefits.
Tampering with Burnt Lime Test Results Alleged
UCIL had challenged the tribunal’s January 21, 2015 award in the High Court. Thanushree Nayak worked as Scientific Assistant Grade-1 and was responsible for preparing chemical analysis reports on burnt lime in the laboratory and sending them to the Assistant Superintendent. Inquiry found that between December 3, 2007 and April 18, 2008 she tampered with about 60 to 65 percent of the burnt lime sample reports, showing higher calcium oxide (CaO) content. Since the company paid suppliers according to burnt lime quality, the alleged manipulation gave undue financial benefit to supplier M/s Shyam Chemicals, which supplied poor-quality material, and caused loss to the company.
Initial Admission, Later Retraction
On April 28, 2008, when asked to explain, she admitted manipulating the results, apologised and sought leniency in view of her service record. In a May 2, 2008 letter, she said the supplier had personally asked her to inflate the results. After the chargesheet, however, her May 19, 2008 reply denied the charges, claiming the Assistant Superintendent had made her write both letters through pressure and fear. The departmental inquiry rejected this, found six charges proved, and the disciplinary authority dismissed her; the appellate authority upheld it.
Tribunal Had Ordered Reinstatement
The tribunal had held the departmental inquiry fair on March 6, 2014, yet in its January 21, 2015 award it set aside the dismissal, viewing the admission letters as written under pressure, finding no solid proof of actual loss, and holding all six charges unproved.
High Court: Tribunal Misread Evidence
The High Court called the tribunal’s decision flawed, saying that after accepting the inquiry as fair, it gave no solid basis to reject the inquiry officer’s findings. Citing Supreme Court rulings, it said that under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act a tribunal may re-evaluate evidence but must exercise this power judiciously, interfering only for clear perversity or grossly disproportionate punishment, and cannot sit as an appellate court. Finding the findings based on documents and witness statements and the misconduct serious, the court held dismissal not disproportionate, restored UCIL’s dismissal order and allowed the company’s writ petition.
