AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In one incident four employees of U.P.S.R.T.C. were involved including the Petitioner. The names of other employees are Kavi Mazdoor, Ramman and R.K. Upadhyaya. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all of them. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that services of the Petitioner were terminated through order dated 13.2.2004, however, the other three persons were awarded lesser punishments of stopping of increments and reversion to original pay scale for four or five years. In respect of other three persons it was mentioned in their punishment orders that lenient view was being taken. In case of R.K. Upadhyaya who was fitter, five increments were stopped and adverse entry was awarded. Kavi Mazdoor was placed on initial pay scale for four years while Ramman Safai Karmachari was placed on initial pay scale for 5 years. Petitioner was fitter (Electrical).
The incident occurred in tyre shop Bareilly U.P.S.R.T.C. on 16.10.1999. The allegation is that on the said date Sri R.B.L. Sharma Assistant Regional Manager after taking round of the workshop had reached the office of Manager personnel where Sri Satendra Singh, Manager (personnel), Central workshop, Kanpur was sitting at that time Manager Personnel Bareilly was not present in his office. Thereafter, Sri J.P. Singh Assistant Regional Accounts Officer also came and sat there. Thereafter the Petitioner and Kavi Mazdoor came in the said Chamber shouting and abusing and they started beating Sri R.V.L. Sharma, Assistant Regional Manager and Kavi Mazdoor started beating him with wooden pole attached with the sweep, the other two persons present tried to protect Shri Sharma. Petitioner and Kavi Mazdoor took Shri Sharma out of the chamber and started beating. The allegation against R.K. Upadhya & Ramman were that when Sri Sharma had been dragged out from the chamber, lot of employees including these two persons gathered and these two persons also abused, misbehaved and slapped Sri Sharma. It was further alleged that Sri Upadhya took out a revolver and threatened Sri Sharma with dire consequences in case any action was taken against Petitioner or Kavi Mazdoor. Thereafter Shri Sharma made written complaint of the incident and thereafter the Petitioner was suspended. Termination order was passed against the Petitioner on 13.2.2004 by Manager Personnel (Sewa Prabandhak) Bareilly. Domestic inquiry was held before passing the punishment order and copy of the inquiry report was sent to the Petitioner. Against punishment order dated 13.2.2004 Petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 4.8.2004. Revision filed against the same was also dismissed on 31.1.2005. All these orders have been challenged through this writ petition.
I do not agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that due opportunity of hearing was not provided to the Petitioner. Petitioner sought and was granted 19 adjournments in the inquiry. Learned Counsel for the employer Respondent has cited an authority of the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, , holding that if an employee hits his superior officer in the presence of other employees then it amounts to breach of discipline and in such situation dismissal is the only appropriate punishment and it can not be said to be harsh or disproportionate. Similar view has been taken in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another Vs. Satbir Singh Mahla, .
As far as the case of Kavi Mazdoor is concerned, punishment order was passed on 29.11.2000. Punishment order against R.K. Upadhaya was passed on 31.10.2000 and against Ramman on 27.11.2000.
Sri R.K. Upadhyaya was Regional President of the Union. In the termination order of the Petitioner dated 13.2.2004 it is mentioned that Petitioner was leading the group which assaulted Sri R.B.L. Sharma.
However, it is quite distressing to note that firstly the appointing authority of the Petitioner and other employees involved in the incident appointed different Inquiry Officers to enquire into the matter. In respect of one incident involving several employees disciplinary proceedings should normally be initiated simultaneously and joint inquiry by one and the same Inquiry Officer should be held. Supreme Court in Bongaigaon Refinery and P.C. Ltd. and Others Vs. Girish Chandra Sarmah, , has held that if a decision has been taken by a committee and action is to be taken on the ground that the decision was mala fide either action shall be taken against all the members of the committee or none.
Prima facie there was absolutely no ground for awarding different types of punishments to different employees involved in the incident in question as they all had participated in the illegal activity with common intention.
In the report of the Inquiry Officer against the Petitioner or in the punishment order against the Petitioner there is no reference or consideration of punishment orders passed against the other three employees involved in the same incident. There does not appear to be any distinguishing feature in the role of the Petitioner.
However, as the other three employees who have been awarded punishments other than punishment of dismissal or removal are not parties in this writ. Punishment orders passed against them are not subjudice in this writ petition. Accordingly, Court can not pass any order against them on the basis that lighter punishments were wrongly awarded to them. On the other hand the nature of charges proved against the Petitioner are such that no lenient view is permissible particularly in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court Authorities M.P. Electricity and Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan.
In view of the above the only course left open for the Court is to award reasonable damages to the Petitioner in stead of reinstating him. The Petitioner is awarded damages of Rs. 40,000/- payable within three months from today failing which one per cent per month interest shall be payable since after three months till actual payment.
Authorities and officers of U.P.S.R.T.C. are directed to be careful in future. If several employees are involved in one and the same incident then joint inquiry must be held.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.