Rawal Singh vs RSRTC and Others

M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 21st October, 2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "Tribunal").

Learned counsel submits that petitioner was dismissed from service without serving a charge sheet or affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, thus filed a complaint before the Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "Act of 1947"). It was held to be maintainable vide order dated 25th April, 2014. The complaint was thereafter kept for hearing of the parties on fairness of enquiry. The enquiry was thereafter held to be fair and proper vide the impugned order. The impugned order was passed in ignorance of the fact that petitioner was not served with the charge sheet or given opportunity of hearing, as contemplated under para 35 of the Standing Orders. In view of the above, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner could not have been held to be fair and proper. Learned labour Court ignored the aforesaid while holding enquiry to be fair and proper.

Coming to the facts of this case, it is submitted that petitioner was served with the notice of hearing by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer but without service of charge sheet in four different cases and without leading evidence by the Corporation, the charges were found proved based on the admission of the misconduct by the petitioner. Referring to the para 35 of the standing orders, learned counsel submits that procedure for enquiry has been given therein but not followed in the instant case. In the light of the aforesaid, the enquiry against the petitioner vitiates.

Learned counsel has given reference of various judgments of this High Court and other High Courts apart from Apex Court to substantiate the arguments.

It is submitted that as and when enquiry against an employee is to be conducted, it has to be as per the procedure given under the Rules. If there is a violation of Rules, the enquiry vitiates and cannot be held to be fair in those cases. In the light of the judgments of various Courts, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

It is a case where there exists four charge sheets against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed copies of those charge sheets. He was given notice by the enquiry officer for his presence in the enquiry. On 16th August, 2011, he did not appear, thus a direction was given to issue notice again. On the next date, it was found that delinquent has been transferred, thus a direction was given to send the notice to the petitioner at his address. The date was further adjourned from time to time. On 16th June, 2012, the delinquent did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, thus a direction for service of notice was again issued. On 29th June, 2012, the delinquent appeared before the Enquiry Officer and the charge sheet was read over. The petitioner accepted the charges and prayed that he does not want enquiry into the matter and even not inclined to cross examine the complainant. In view of the admission and statement of the employee, the order sheet was recorded and the enquiry was closed. The order sheet dated 29th June, 2012 has been signed by the petitioner. The petitioner is one, who did not raise objection or grievance about alleged non-service of charge sheet when he appeared before the Enquiry Officer, rather he had admitted the charges and prayed not to hold detailed enquiry. He even declined to cross examine the complainant. In the light of the aforesaid, the Enquiry Officer had closed the enquiry. The charges are required to be proved if not admitted by the delinquent. It is moreso when, the petitioner himself denied for detailed enquiry or to cross examine the complainant. The report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the light of the aforesaid followed by order of punishment.

In view of the facts given above, it cannot be said that petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing. If the petitioner was not served with the charge sheet, he should have demanded it first or raise objection before the Enquiry Officer. He did not raise any objection to this effect, rather admitted the charges and would not be, if conveyed. In the circumstances aforesaid, it cannot be said that charge sheet to the petitioner was not served, rather in absence of the objections by the petitioner to this effect, presumption has to be drawn against him. It is moreso when, the charge sheet was issued and sent through registered post. It is further a fact that once an employee admits his guilt, no further procedure is required to be undertaken. Learned labour Court considered all these aspects while passing the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred several judgments of this High Court and different High Courts apart from Apex Court, which are also required to be dealt with.

First judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon, . It was held that if the disciplinary proceedings is not conducted fairly then presumption can be drawn about prejudice to the charged employee. If the facts of that case are considered, they are altogether different than the facts of this case. The enquiry cannot be said to be unfair even if the petitioner was called by the Enquiry Officer by serving notice. He then appeared before the Enquiry Officer and never submitted that charge sheets have not been served on him, rather the petitioner admitted the charges and prayed that enquiry be concluded as he does not want to cross examine the departmental witnesses. In view of the above, first judgment cited by the petitioner does not help him.

The other judgment is in the case of Ministry of Finance and Another Vs. S.B. Ramesh, . Therein, the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment without any evidence to prove the charges. The procedure in the enquiry was also not followed, thus order of punishment was set aside. In the instant case, allegations of non-observance of the procedure has been made in reference to Para No. 35 of the Standing Order but I find no substance in the argument. It is for the reason that detailed procedure is required to be followed if an employee does not accept charges and not otherwise. The perusal of the order sheet of 29.06.2012 reveals not only admission of the petitioner but even a prayer to conclude the enquiry as he does not want to cross examine the witnesses. The order sheet dated 29th June, 2012 is quoted hereunder for ready reference:

The perusal of the order sheet reveals that petitioner himself declined to hold detail enquiry, thus in the light of the admission of charges, enquiry was concluded. The petitioner cannot now say that procedure given in Para No. 35 of the Standing Order has not been followed once he himself prayed to dispense it. In view of the above, I do not find that there is a violation of para No. 35 of Standing Orders.

The next judgment is in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, . Therein, it was held that mere production of documents would not be enough to prove the charges as it to be proved by examining the witnesses. Therein, a confession was made by the employee before the Police about his guilt but was not found to be sufficient unless an evidence is brought that appellant was involved in stealing. If the facts of this case are looked into, the confessional statement before the police is not the basis to held charge as proved but the statement of the petitioner is before the enquiry officer. The petitioner herein has admitted the guilt in the enquiry itself and put his signature as a token of acceptance of the order sheets recorded thereupon. It is not a case where there was a confessional statement before the Police followed by production of said document without proving it by examining the witnesses. In the light of the aforesaid, even judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) does not provide assistance to the petitioner.

Other judgment is in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Kharak Singh, . In the said case, it was held that departmental witnesses should be led at the first instance in the presence of the charged employee. A copy of the enquiry along with material should then be furnished to the charged employee. Those requirements were not fulfilled in the said case, thus enquiry was held to be bad. No doubt, it is true that as and when enquiry is to be conducted, the evidence is to be led to prove the charges, if charges are not accepted by the delinquent but in a case where charges have been admitted by the delinquent, the requirement to prove it does not remain, as the charge admitted by the delinquent does not require a proof, thus the judgment supra does not apply to the facts of this case.

The other judgment, referred by the petitioner, is in the case of Rajesh Khanna Vs. The Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur reported in 2002(2) WLC (Raj.) 464. Therein, the facts were similar to the facts in the case of Kharak Singh (supra), thus it need not further discussion.

The judgment of this Court in the case of Bharatpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Judge, Labour Court & Anr. reported in 2001(2) RLW (Raj.) 1221 has also been referred. In the aforesaid case, the confessional statements were not accepted by the labour Court as it were recorded under duress at the instance of the management and were not found to be trustworthy. The case in hand is not having such allegation. The petitioner has not come with the case that admission about guilt was recorded under duress.

The judgment in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Jagdish Chandra Khadgawat reported in 1986(2) SLR 424 has been relied. Therein, the conclusions were drawn in the enquiry about admission of guilt but again it was based on Exhibit R/4 where the statements of delinquent were recorded before the Investigating Officer. It was held that presumption of acceptance of guilt cannot be drawn when the charges cast stigma against the petitioner. A reference of judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Chandu Lal Vs. Management of Pan American World Airways Inc., has been given to show that as and when a stigma is casted against an employee, the enquiry is a pre-condition for the passing punishment order. The perusal of the judgment in the case supra does not show that even if the delinquent admits his guilt, enquiry would be a pre-condition and, that too, when, admission is not before the Investigating officer but before the Enquiry Officer himself with the further request to dispense with the enquiry and the delinquent is not inclined to cross examine the witnesses.

Learned counsel has taken an excuse that an employee may be ignorant of the law, though it is well settled law that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse and said proposition has been propounded not only by this court but by the Apex Court also. In the light of the facts aforesaid, it cannot be said that ignorance of the law can be to the benefit of any person. Therein, a reference of Evidence Act was also given, though it is settled law that provision of the Evidence Act does not apply to the disciplinary enquiry and even before the labour Court. In that regard, the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh, as well as in the case of Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc., are relevant and is referred accordingly. In a criminal case also, where an accused confess his guilt, prosecution is not asked to produce evidence to prove the charges.

The last judgment in the case of Chelfru Mog Vs. State of Tripura and Others, has been referred. The facts of the said case are different than the facts of the present case, thus judgment in the case of Chelfru Mog (supra) does not provide any assistance to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred procedure for enquiry provided by the Corporation. Suffice is to say that service of charge sheet followed by the procedure would be pre-condition but in instance case, when the petitioner was served with the notice for presence before the Enquiry Officer, he did not raise objection about non-serving of charge sheet, rather he admitted his guilt, which can be when an employee is aware about charges. Further procedure is required to be followed, if the delinquent denies the charges.

In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed so as the stay application.