IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
and
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
WRIT PETITION NO.28255 OF 2007
K.Kaviyarasu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Central Administrative Tribunal
rep. By its Registrar,
City Civil Court Building
High Court Complex,
Chennai 104.
2. The Union of India rep. By
The Additional Director General
Ordanance Factories & Appellate Authority,
Ordnance Factory Board,
Armoured Vehicle Head Quarters,
Avadi, Chennai 54.
3. The Senior General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 54.
4. The Inquiry Officer,
Joint General Manager/PC-I
Heavy Vehicles Factory
Avadi, Chennai 54. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the 1st respondent in O.A.No.826 of 2005 dated 15.09.2006 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.668/Appeal/AVHQ/HVF(KK) dated 08.08.2005 and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.405/6/2005/55 dated 18.02.2005 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balamurali Krishnan for
M/s Krishna Associates
For Respondents : Mr.G.Nanmaran, SCGSC (R2-R4)
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by K.Chandru,J)
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) made in O.A.No.826 of 2005 in rejecting the case of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was employed as a Washer and Bearer in the Industrial Canteen run by the third respondent and he was working since 19.06.1998. On 24.10.2002 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings into serious charges to be framed against him. On 25.11.2002, he was served with a charge memo and the crux of the memo was that he was responsible for contaminating the canteen meals by putting naphthalene balls into sambar to be served during lunch.
3. A departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner. In that enquiry, the enquiry officer recorded the statement of one Saraswathi as P.W.3, who was also similarly charge sheeted along with the petitioner. The enquiry officer, based his finding only the evidence given by P.W.3 Saraswathi and P.W.2 J.Murali. According to the petitioner, that since Saraswathi herself was charge sheeted, her statement cannot be believed as it might have been given with a view to escape, she would have obliged the authorities. She was also suspended from service and on threat, the statement was obtained by the higher officials so as to frame charges against the petitioner. His objection with reference to her statement was rejected and the disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. It was contented that the petitioner’s request to send the Sambar for chemical test was denied. The petitioner filed O.A.No.826 of 2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after an analysis of all the evidence, rejected the case of the petitioner. It is as against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. We have heard the arguments of Mr.N.Balamurali Krishnan for M/s Krishana Associates and Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for R2 to R4 and have gone through the records.
5. Mr.G.Nanmaran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel filed the entire inquiry proceedings in a typed set of papers and took this Court to the entire proceedings. We have also gone through the entire proceedings. We find that even before the preliminary enquiry, the said Saraswathi had pointed out the incident of contaminating the Sambar kept for serving during lunch. Even before the enquiry, when she was examined, she stuck to her version and pointed out the accusing finger against the petitioner. She told that even before the Board of enquiry she told the truth and before the enquiry officer she had categorically stated the time and duration during which the Naphthalene balls were put. There were other circumstantial evidence which were also let in, in the enquiry and this Court is not inclined to extract the entire adverse evidence against the petitioner in this order. It is suffice to say that the Court is convinced that this is not a case of no evidence. But, on the contrary this is a case of satisfactory evidence let in against the petitioner.
6. A counter affidavit has also been filed to justify the action taken by the official respondents with reference to the quantum of penalty. His contention that P.W.3 Saraswathi was a co-accused and therefore no credibility can be attached to her statement and that she had made such statement only to get back her employment cannot be accepted. It is true that she was also suspended in contemplation of charges. But, in the preliminary enquiry, it was found that needle of suspicion only pointed towards the petitioner and therefore there is nothing wrong in the said person being examined as a witness against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was unable to bring it to light any contradiction in the statement made by P.W.3 Saraswathi.
7. The other contention that the said food item viz., Sambar was not sent for chemical examination is only stated to be rejected. In a case where by putting naphthalene balls into the Sambar, which was contaminated and that it cannot be eaten, there was no necessity to make any chemcial examination. When there are eye witnesses who have seen the petitioner putting the naphthalene balls into the sambar and it was subsequently they were removed from the food item, there is no further Chemical Examination need to be made. Putting an alien substance into food item would certainly be unwelcomed in a sensitive area like an Industrial Canteen, it can create more unrest and unhappiness among the workers and no canteen management can tolerate such deliberate mischievous act on the part of any one of their employees. We are not persuaded to take a different view than that of the Tribunal.
8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and another vs. K.Ravinder Rao reported in 2008 AIR SCW 930, wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the paramater of judicial review in case of a penalty imposed against a government servant. It is relevant to extract the following passages found in paragraph 6 of the said order, which reads as follows:-
“6. It is strange that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India re-appreciated the evidence and came to a different conclusion which is not within the scope of the High Court. The finding given by the Inquiring Officer has been affirmed in appeal and the same having been examined by the Tribunal in threadbare there was no justification for the High Court to come to its own conclusion where there was concurrent finding given by the Inquiring Officer and the Tribunal. But the High Court appreciated the whole evidence which was unwarranted. …… Time and again this Court has emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, appreciation of evidence should not be done in matters of this nature unless the finding appears to be perverse. In the present case the finding having been examined in detail by the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having found no perversity in the finding of the Inquiring Officer, we fail to appreciate the approach of the High Court”.
9. In a recent order dated 05.03.2008 in Chairman & M.D. V.S.P.&Ors. vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (in Civil Appeal No.1770 of 2008), once again re-emphasised the said ratio. The following passage found in Paragraphs 16 and 17 may be usefully extracted:-
“16. ….. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments [See Maruthi Udyod Ltd. vs. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 638]; State of Bihar & Ors. V.Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006(9) SCALE 549]; Regional Manager, SBI vs. Mahatma Mishra [2006(11) SCALE 258]; State of Karnataka vs. Ameerbi & Ors.[2006(13) SCALE 319]; State of M.P. and Ors. vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. vs. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of 2008 decided on 22.1.2008].
17. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an amployer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved.{[See Sangeroid Remedies Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1999) 1 SCC 259]}.
The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order”.
10. In the light of the above decisions and in the light of our own finding with reference to the culpability of the petitioner, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
rg
1. The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal
City Civil Court Building,High Court Complex,
Chennai 104.
2. The Additional Director General
Ordanance Factories & Appellate Authority,
Ordnance Factory Board, The Union of India
Armoured Vehicle Head Quarters,
Avadi, Chennai 54.
3. The Senior General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, Chennai 54.
4. The Inquiry Officer,
Joint General Manager/PC-I
Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi,
Chennai 54.