AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J.—There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. The petitioner filed Case No. 258/MPIR/1997 before the Labour Court u/s 31(3) of the MPIR Act, 1960 seeking entry of proper date of birth and other benefits. The Labour Court by order dated 18.11.1999 allowed the said application. The Industrial Court affirmed the said order in employer''s appeal No. 665/MPIR/1000 on 13.12.2000 (Annexure P-14). This Court in W.P. No. 548/2001 (Annexure P-15) affirmed the order of Labour Court on 23.9.2004. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 21.1.1998. Five charges were made against him. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who gave his finding on 23.11.2000. Charge No. 5 was not found proved whereas charge No. 4 was found partly proved. Charge No. 1 to 3 were found proved by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner preferred a representation against the I.O.''s report. The disciplinary authority by order dated 7.2.2011 inflicted a punishment of reversion from service on the petitioner. This order of reversion was challenged in W.P. No. 310/2002. This Court on 10.7.2002 set aside the order on the ground that after retirement the punishment of reversion could not be imposed on the petitioner. Liberty was reserved to the respondents to reconsider and pass appropriate orders. In turn, the order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) was passed whereby the petitioner''s pension upto 20% was withheld for one year. The petitioner preferred appeal against this order dated 4.12.2002 which was decided by order dated 15.3.2003 by the appellate authority. These orders were again assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 1080/03 which was decided on 23.9.2004 (Annexure P-12).
This Court found that the appellate authority has not applied his mind and, therefore, directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh by a speaking order by assigning proper reasons. It was further directed by this Court that the appellate authority will deal with the findings recorded by the Labour Court while examining the appeal of the petitioner. In turn, a fresh appellate order dated 24.12.2004 (Annexure P-1) was passed, which is challenged in the present petition. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is clear that a long drawn battle is fought by the petitioner in the corridors of the Courts.
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the appellate order also on the ground of non-assigning reasons and non-application of mind. He submits that the grounds raised in the appeal (Annexure P-11) are not considered and the order is perverse in nature.
The order is supported by Shri Newaskar. He submits that the appellate authority has passed a detailed order running in five pages which warrants no interference by this Court. He submits that the appellate order is in consonance with the requirements of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A minute reading of the appellate order dated 24.12.2004 (Annexure P-1) shows that from page 1 to 4 the appellate authority has merely reproduced the history of the matter. He narrated the history of litigation, stand taken by the petitioner and the orders passed by this Court.
As per Rule 27 of M.P. C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules, it is the statutory obligation on the part of the appellate authority to deal the contentions raised by the petitioner. A quasi judicial appellate authority is bound to apply his mind on the grounds raised in the appeal. His duty is multiplied because of further direction of this Court to consider the appeal in accordance with law. Once earlier appellate order was set aside being non speaking, the appellate authority was under a legal obligation to minutely examine every aspect raised by the petitioner. The Apex Court way back in Ram Chander Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, opined that the appellate authority needs to assign reason. This order was followed by this Court in Mohammad Idris Vs. Registrar General, M.P. High Court, Jabalpur and another, The Apex Court recently reiterated the necessity to assign reasons in Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, The appellate authority assigned following reasons while rejecting the appeal:
And whereas in compliance with the Hon''ble High Court decision dtd. 23.9.2004, the appeal of Shri R.S. Goyal, has been re-considered on the ground raised by him in the appeal and observed that though the date of birth of Shri R.S. Goyal has been treated as "20.1.1941" instead "20.1.1940" by the Hon''ble Labour Court and Industrial Court but other alleged charges stand proved against Shri Goyal in departmental enquiry. After re-considering the appeal, the report of enquiry officer and other material held on the record, it has come to the conclusion that submission made by Shri R.S. Goyal, Retired O.A. Gr-I do not required reconsideration as punishment was awarded on him after giving full and fair opportunity in the departmental enquiry proceedings. Therefore, grounds raised by Shri R.S. Goyal, O.A. Gr-I (Retd.) do not warrant any interference and looking to the gravity of proved charges, punishment imposed on him is justified and maintainable.
Therefore, the order No. 203-04 dt. 4.12.2002 of SE (ST/RE), Gwalior vide which punishment of reduction of 20% pension for a period of one year imposed on Shri R.S. Goyal, Retd. O.A. Gr.-I and this office order No. CE/GR/02-B/4241-42 dt. 15.2.2003 vide which his appeal dtd. 15.3.2003 rejected, are upheld.
A bare perusal of the operative portion of the appellate order if examined in juxtaposition to the petition will show that it suffers from various infirmities. In the Labour Court there was a finding that petitioner''s date of birth is 20.1.1941. The appellate authority indirectly accepted this finding but gave further finding that other alleged charges against the petitioner were proved in the departmental enquiry. This runs contrary to the record because admittedly charge No. 5 was not proved and charge No. 4 was partly proved. Thus, findings are perverse in nature.
Apart from this, while holding that charge No. 4 is partly proved, the Inquiry Officer opined that the alleged violation of executive instructions by the delinquent employee was vague and ambiguous because the circulars which are allegedly violated by the petitioner were not supplied to him along with the charge sheet. The employer has not published any booklet containing those circulars and, therefore, in absence of providing those circulars/booklets to the petitioner, action against him appears to be improper. Despite giving this finding, the said authority opined that charges are partly proved, which part of the charge is proved and how it is proved is not shown by the Inquiry Officer.
The charge No. 2 & 3 are almost related. The allegation is that at the time of appointment the petitioner described himself as "R.S. Govil", whereas later on he started mentioning his name as "R.S. Goyal". The Labour Court in its order Annexure P-13 (page 85) recorded the statement of Management witnesses wherein they have stated that the petitioner''s two brothers, viz., S.S. Goyal and R.C. Goyal were working in the same department. As per the order of the High Court, the appellate authority was obliged to consider this aspect for charge No. 2 & 3. There is no application of mind on this charge.
Accordingly, I am unable to uphold the appellate order dated 24.12.2004 which suffers from serious non-application of mind and runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. Appellate Authority has jumped on conclusion without assigning any reason therefor. I am conscious of the fact that the petitioner is fighting for his rights for more than a decade and, therefore, as a last indulgence granting three months time to the appellate authority to pass appropriate reasoned order by taking into account the aforesaid aspects.
On the basis of aforesaid analysis, the impugned appellate order dated 24.12.2004 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the appellate authority to pass appropriate appellate order within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing which the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner will be treated as abated. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.