Datta Kumar Singh vs Executive Director (HR/ER), NTPC Ltd., Bihar & Ors.

Authority-Opp. Party No.1 to dispose of the appeal so filed by the Petitioner on 26.09.2003 under Annexure-13, Opp. Party No.1 after due consideration of the appeal, rejected the same by confirming the order dated 28.08.2003 vide order dated 14.09.2015 under Annexure-16.

It is contended that since admittedly Petitioner on the face of the terms of the bond executed under Annexure-A/1, continued as a partner in the partnership firm, taking into account the undertaking given by him under Annexure-B/1, no illegality or irregularity can be found either with the impugned order dated 28.08.2003, wherein Petitioner was removed from the training but also the order passed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 on 14.09.2015 under Annexure-16.

To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for NTPC, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that since the partnership firm was dissolved with due execution of deed of dissolution on 01.08.2001 under Annexure-7-series, it cannot be held that Petitioner continued as a partner in the said partnership firm which had business interest with NTPC.

It is further contended that Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit was issued by the Petitioner on behalf of the partnership firm as the claim relates to the period 2000-2001, that is prior to dissolution of the partnership deed on 01.08.2001.

It is contended that since strike call notice was given by the workmen engaged by the partnership firm in the NGR operation contract claiming disbursement of the PF contribution deducted from the workmen, Petitioner since was a partner at the relevant point of time, he gave the undertaking to the workmen on 21.08.2002 under Annexure-B/1 and it cannot be said that Petitioner issued such a letter being a partner of the partnership firm. It is contended that since the partnership deed was dissolved with execution of the deed of dissolution on 01.08.2001, on the face of such deed of dissolution, which was duly registered, it cannot be held that Petitioner issued Annexure-B/1 in his capacity as a partner and thereby violating Clause 10 of the bond executed in between the Petitioner and NTPC on 05.09.2001 under Annexure-A/1.

It is also contended that even if admitting that Petitioner on the face of the dissolution of the partnership deed, issued letter dated 21.08.2002 under Annexure-B/1, but such misconduct on the part of the Petitioner cannot be treated as a grave misconduct, resulting removal from the training vide order dated 28.08.2003 under Annexure-9, confirmed vide order 14.09.2015 under Annexure-16.

It is contended that since prior to such removal from training vide order dated 28.08.2003, Petitioner had already completed the required one (1) year of training as on w.e.f. 17.09.2002, with quashing of the impugned orders so issued under Annexure-9 and 16, Opp. Party-NTPC be directed to absorb the Petitioner as against the post w.e.f. 17.09.2002.

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner being a Land Oustee, he was allowed to take part in the interview for the post of Artisan Trainee vide letter dated 17.08.2001 under Annexure-1.

After coming out successful in the interview, petitioner was appointed as against the post of Artisan Trainee (Fitter) vide order dated 31.08.2001 under Annexure-2. In terms of the said order Petitioner was allowed to undergo the training with due execution of the bond on 05.09.2001 under Annexure-A/1. Even though the training period was one year, but taking into account the discretion vested with the Management, on the face of completion of one year training, Petitioner was allowed to remain on such training w.e.f. 17.09.2002 vide order dated 29.10.2002 under Annexure-4 and thereafter it was extended up to 16.09.2003 vide order dated 16.06.2003 under Annexure-5.

However, while so continuing in training in terms of the order issued on 16.06.2003, Petitioner was issued with the show cause on 11.08.2003 under Annexure-8. Such a show cause was issued by proposing termination of the Petitioner from such training on the ground that he has violated Clause 10 of the bond executed in between the Petitioner and NTPC on 05.09.2001 under Annexure-3/ Annexure A/1. Since Petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause, Petitioner was removed from the training vide order dated 28.08.2003 under Annexure-9 of Opp. Party No.3.

It is also found that challenging such order dated 28.08.2003, Petitioner though moved the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.1 by filing an appeal on 26.09.2003 under Annexure-13, but simultaneously Petitioner challenging such order of removal from training, also approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11363 of 2003. The Writ Petition after being disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2015 under Annexure-14 wherein Opp. Party No.1 was directed to take a decision on the appeal so filed by the Petitioner on 26.09.2003, Opp. Party No.1 rejected the appeal vide order dated 14.09.2015 under Annexure-16.

As found from the record, Petitioner was so removed from the training vide order dated 28.08.2003 under Annexure-9, on the ground that he has violated Clause- 10 of the bond so executed on 05.09.2001 vide Annexure-A/1 and the undertaking given by the Petitioner under Annexure-B/1.

This Court taking into account the stipulation contained in Clause 10 of the bond under Annexure-A/1, the deed of dissolution executed on 01.08.2001 under Annexure-7-series and the undertaking given by the Petitioner on 21.08.2002 under Annexure-B/1, is of the view that on the face of such dissolution of the partnership deed, Petitioner could not have issued the undertaking so issued by him under Annexure-B/1, for and on behalf of the partnership firm.

It is also found and which is not disputed, Petitioner never received the show cause, so issued on 11.08.2003 under Annexure-C/1 and such refusal on his part is reflected under Annexure-D/1.

It is the view of this Court that Petitioner being an employee under NTPC, he should not have refused to receive the show cause so issued to him on 11.08.2003 under Annexure-C/1 and on the face of the dissolution of the deed of partnership on 01.08.2001, Petitioner could not have issued the undertaking so issued by him on 21.08.2002 under Annexure-D/1.

In view of such misconduct on the part of the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner has been rightly removed while continuing in training vide order dated 28.08.2003 under Annexure-9, so confirmed by Opp. Party No.1 vide his order dated 14.09.2015 under Annexure-16 and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner however is at liberty to move Opp. Party No.1 for reconsideration of his claim to get the benefit of appointment before Opp. Party No.1. It is observed that if such a request will be made by the Petitioner before Opp. Party No.1, Opp. Party No.1 shall take a lawful decision on the same, taking into account the fact that Petitioner for his misconduct has suffered a lot, being out of service for around 23 years and by the time he was discontinued from his training, he had completed around two (2) years of training.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Signature Not Verified