AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.
The Petitioner, who approached before this Court by way of present Petition, has challenged the order dated 21/12/2017 on preliminary issues as well as final Judgment and Order dated 23/1/2018 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No. 57/2013.
The case of the Petitioner in short is that, he was working as a Driver in the Respondent/Corporation since the year 2004. He was chargesheeted by the Respondent by issuing chargesheet dated 29/10/2010. The charge against the present Petitioner was that on 11/10/2010 while he was discharging his duty as a driver on ST Bus bearing registration No. MH-31/9728, plying from Saoner to Katol, the said Bus was stopped by the Checking Squad at Ghubadmet Bus Stop. It is alleged that the Petitioner, instead of co-operating the Checking Squad, asked them as to how they have stopped the Bus and without having uniform how they want to check the Bus and also threatened them to do whatever they want. So also the Petitioner did not get down from the Bus when the Members of the Squad asked him to get down from the Bus. As such, according to the Respondent/Corporation, he has committed misconduct and misbehaviour with the Squad Members, and therefore, enquiry was initiated against him in the matter.
In the enquiry proceeding one of the Squad Member Shri Tayade appeared before the Enquiry Officer and deposed entire incident which was taken place on 11/10/2010.
According to the Petitioner, during enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has acted in a dual capacity i.e. as the Equiry Officer and conducted the examination-in-chief as well as cross examination of the witnesses of the Petitioner. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, the manner in which enquiry is conducted, is not fair and proper in the matter.
The other ground, which was raised by the Petitioner, is that there was no sufficient evidence available before the Enquiry Officer to inflict any punishment against the Petitioner. However, in absence of any evidence, the punishment of withholding two increments permanently was imposed upon the Petitioner, which according to him, is major penalty.
In the background of these facts, against the said order, Petitioner had initially preferred the departmental appeal before the first Appellate Authority as per the Service Rules of the Corporation. The Authority, vide order dated 21/12/2012 rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision taken by the Enquiry Officer.
The Petitioner being aggrieved by both the orders, has approached before the Industrial Court vide Complaint (ULP) No. 57/2013 and raised grounds that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct fair and proper enquiry and in absence of any evidence available on record, the penalty of stoppage of two increments was imposed, which according to the Petitioner, is a major penalty. Therefore, seeks indulgence in the matter.
The Respondent/Corporation appeared before the Industrial Court and has submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in fair and proper manner. The Respondent/Corporation has specifically relied upon the Discipline and Appeal Rules of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which was issued vide Circular No. 16/2005. According the said Circular, entire procedure is provided as to how the enquiry is to be conducted against the employee and what is the role of Enquiry Officer in such enquiry.
On the basis of rival submissions of the parties, the Industrial Court has framed two preliminary issues, viz - (i) Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was illegal, improper and violative of principles of natural justice? and (ii) Whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse in nature?
The Industrial Court, by order dated 21/12/2017 has recorded negative findings to both the preliminary issues, and thereby directed to both the parties to lead evidence on the other issues involved in the complaint. It is pointed out that before the Industrial Court both the parties have led evidence in support of their submission and the proceedings were decided on merits. The learned Industrial Court, by its Judgment and order dated 23/1/2018, by considering the evidence and the Service Rules, which are produced by the present Respondent, has partly allowed the Complaint and the punishment of stoppage of two increments imposed upon the Petitioner with cumulative effect vide order dated 31/10/2011 was reduced to one basic pay of the Petitioner with cumulative effect.
The Petitioner, by way of present Petition, has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 23/1/2018 on various grounds before this Court. According to the Petitioner, the Industrial Court ought to have quashed and set aside the entire punishment which was imposed against him. According to him, once the Industrial Court reached to the conclusion that Respondent/Corporation has indulged in unfair labour practice, then instead of reduction of the punishment, entire punishment was deserved to be quashed and set aside, but for not doing so, he constrained to approached before this Court by filing the present Petition.
The learned Counsel for Respondent/Corporation states that it is established before the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner was found to have committed misconduct and misbehaviour with the Squad Member of the Corporation, and therefore, the Industrial Court has rightly appreciated the controversy in the matter and reduced the punishment, which is not challenged by the Respondent/Corporation by independent Petition. Therefore, since the proportionate punishment was imposed upon the Petitioner for his misconduct, no interference of this Court is warranted in the matter.
Main contention of the Petitioner in the present Petition is that, the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. According to the Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has acted in a dual manner. As he was appointed as Enquiry Officer, he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding. However, by exceeding his jurisdiction in the enquiry proceeding, he has conducted enquiry, therefore, entire proceedings are vitiated.
The learned Counsel for Respondent has pointed out that Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Corporation, circulated vide Circular No. 16/2005. Clause -(5) of the said Rules provides the procedure, which is to be followed by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the departmental enquiry. As per the said Rules, the representatives of Corporation or the Enquiry Officer are permitted to cross-examine the witnesses or to ask the questions to the witnesses which are produced before the Enquiry Officer. As such, by exercising these powers, the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry into the matter. Hence, according to the Respondent, the Enquiry Officer did not exceed his jurisdiction, and hence, there is no merit in the submission of the Petitioner.
It is further submission of the Petitioner that in the present matter no substantive evidence was brought on record before the Enquiry Officer to reach to the conclusion that the Petitioner has misbehaved with the Squad Members who have stopped his Bus at Ghubadmet on 11/10/2010. According to him, no misbehaviour of the Petitioner was proved beyond reasonable doubt before the Enquiry Officer, and therefore, in absence of this evidence, punishment, which is imposed upon him, is illegal and incorrect.
In the present matter, one of the Member of Checking Squad namely, Shri Tayade, appeared before the Enquiry Oficer and stated about the incident dated 11/10/2010. As such, the Enquiry Officer, in order to satisfy himself by exercising the powers which are made available to him by Discipline and Service Rules, has satisfied himself that there is a misbehaviour on the part of Petitioner and thereby on the basis of evidence, which was available before him, reached to this conclusion.
The first Appellate Authority has re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the order passed by the Enquiry Officer in the matter. So also the Industrial Court has further considered the entire evidence available on record and thereby held that there is a misconduct on the part of Petitioner, but instead of stoppage of two increments permanently with cumulative effect, has reduced the punishment. As such, two Authorities have applied their minds and reached to the conclusion that the Petitioner is involved in the alleged incident dated 11/10/2010.
It is well settled position of law that this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the departmental enquiry. This Court cannot act like a Appellate Authority to verify the evidence while exercising judicial review of the order passed by the Authorities below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ranjit Singh V/s Ravi Prakash, 2004(3) SCC 682 has laid down the law that this Court cannot re-appreciate or re-valuate the evidence. Only patent error which is apparent on the face of record can be looked into. Hence, considering the settled legal position of law, this Court is not expected to re-appreciate or reconsider the entire evidence which was considered by the Enquiry Officer and the Authorities below. Hence, in my opinion, when both the Courts below have considered the evidence, this Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence in the matter.
The Petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roop Singh Negi V/s Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570. On the basis of this Judgment, it is the submission of the Petitioner that when the decision of the Disciplinary Authority is not supported by any reason and the decision which was taken by the Authority is without recording any evidence, then in that case, the Court can interfere in the matter. For this proposition, he has relied upon the paragraph No.23 of the Judgment, which reads thus :
“23.Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.”
In my considered opinion, in the present matter, the Enquiry Officer, the Appellate Authority and the Industrial Court have dealt with the issues and reached to the conclusion that there was some evidence available on record and on the basis of said evidence, passed the orders in the matter. The Industrial Court has recorded cogent reasons in the order, and accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has reduced to the punishment of one basic pay of the Petitioner with cumulative effect.
In the circumstances, I find no merit in the present Petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.