IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 3021 of 2001
Raj Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad &
Another ..... Respondents
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
-----
For the Petitioners - M/s S.N.Das, A.K.Rashidi
For the Respondent No.1 - Mr. Prabhash Kumar, C.G.C
-----
3/9.7.2009
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the part of the
award dated 12.3.01 passed in Reference Case No. 226/1990 by the Presiding
Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad whereby though
the petitioner has been reinstated, he ahs been denied back wages and other
consequential reliefs.
2. According to the petitioner, learned Tribunal while rendering the award of
his reinstatement has erroneously refused back wages and other consequential
benefits. In view of the award, he is also entitled to get full back wages and
other consequential benefits.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was working in Kedla
North Colliery as Motor Vehicle Driver, Category-II. He was also the Organizing
Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Santh (INTUC). According to the
petitioner, since he had raised several demands on behalf of the workmen before
the authorities, the same was taken in bad taste by the concerned authorities.
The petitioner was served with a revengeful charge sheet dated 5.1.88 and he
was put under suspension. The petitioner in the meanwhile, fell seriously ill. The
respondents proceeded with the departmental enquiry. A police case was also
instituted against the petitioner. In spite of his illness and the request made for
stay of the departmental proceeding, the departmental proceeding was not
stayed and the enquiry was concluded in absence of the petitioner holding him
guilty of the charges. By order dated 18.10.88 the petitioner was awarded
punishment of demotion from the post of M.V Driver Category-IV to the post of
Truck Khalasi in Category-II. The authorities did not stop there. They issued
2
another chargesheet dated 29.1.88 against the petitioner with the allegation that
the petitioner entered into the office of the Project Officer without taking his
permission and shouted at the Superintendent of Mines, who was sitting in the
office of the Project Officer. Against the said charges the petitioner filed his reply
denying the same. The inquiry officer thereafter proceeded with the said enquiry.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with a
criminal case and as such he could not again participate in the enquiry. The
enquiry proceeded ex parte and on conclusion of the same, the petitioner was
held guilty of misconduct and was awarded punishment of stoppage of his two
increments by letter dated 10.10.1988. The petitioner thereafter was served with
the third charge sheet with the allegations of chasing the Dy.C.M.E, Kedla
Opencast Project and abusing him and throwing big stones with intention to
break the door of his office. The further allegation was that when the security
personnel tried to stop him, he took out a revolver and intimidated the security
personnel. Against the third charge the concerned workman (petitioner) filed his
reply, but the same was not found satisfactory and again the petitioner was
subjected to a domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer held him guilty of the
charges. This time, by order dated 21.10.88 the petitioner was awarded
punishment of dismissal from service w.e.f 24.10.88.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all the domestic
enquiries were perfunctory and eye wash. The enquiries were malicious and
illegal. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend him and there was
blatant violation of the prescribed rule and principle of natural justice.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the same had protested and raised an
industrial dispute which by order dated 26.9.1990 of the Ministry of Labour,
Central Government, was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
No.I, Dhanbad.
6. The reference was in the following term:
“Whether the two punishments both dated 18.10.88 by
reverting Raj Kumar Singh an M.V.Driver to Cat.II as Truck
Khalasi and forfeiture of his two consecutive annual
3increments respectively and the third punishment dated
21/24.10.88 dismissing the workman and forfeiting a portion
of his wages other than the subsistence allowance, met out
by the management of Kedla North Colliery is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman entitled.”
7. The Management filed written statement before learned Tribunal stating,
inter alia, that the concerned workman was found guilty of misconduct under the
provisions of Section 17 of the Standing Orders applicable to the said colliery.
The concerned workman was proceeded against thrice for his misconducts. The
chargesheets were issued to him and he was given opportunity to defend. He
filed his reply in the said proceedings which was not found satisfactory. The
Management conducted a fair and proper enquiry, to enquire into the charges
contained in the memorandum of charges. The concerned workman was found
guilty of all the charges and on the basis of his proved misconduct the concerned
workman was given different punishments. However, in the last proceeding he
was awarded punishment of dismissal from service on the basis of the proved
charges. The concerned workman was found incorrigible. He went on
misbehaving with the senior officials. His past record was also considered in
awarding the punishment of dismissal from service.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Tribunal has rightly
considered the facts and circumstances appearing on record and has come to the
conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was improper and disproportionate
to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned Tribunal also took into
consideration the judgment of the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case and
has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement. He also rendered award directing the Management to reinstate
the petitioner in service, but has erroneously deprived the petitioner of his back
wages and other consequential benefits.
9. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
submitted that since the punishment of the petitioner was found excessive and
learned Tribunal has reinstated the petitioner, there was no justification for
denial of his back wages and other consequential benefits.
4
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted that
the stand taken in this writ petition and the contentions of learned counsel for
the petitioner, in view of the facts and circumstances, noticed by the Tribunal,
are wholly misconceived. Learned Tribunal has taken very liberal approach in
view of the petitioner’s suffering for several years. However, the petitioner has
not been given a clean chit so far as the charges of his misconduct are
concerned. According to learned Tribunal, the punishment was severe and
disproportionate to the charges and as such it has directed for reinstatement of
the petitioner. But the other punishments awarded to the petitioner have not
been set aside or interfered with. That apart, the concerned workman has not
taken the ground that he was not gainful employed after the order of his
dismissal. Learned counsel submitted that there is no error in the impugned
award and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and
materials on record. I have also perused the impugned award. I find from the
award that learned Tribunal has discussed all the relevant aspects, facts,
circumstances and materials on record and has come to the conclusion that
though the petitioner was held guilty of the charges of misconduct, the ultimate
punishment of dismissal is excessive and disproportionate. However, he has not
held that the petitioner is not guilty of any charge and he does not deserve any
punishment. In the concluding Paragraph 9 of the impugned award learned
Tribunal held, thus :
“Since we have come to a finding that the concerned
workman has first of all misbehaved with the General
Manager on 4.1.88. Thereafter, he was chargesheeted for
misbehaving with the Supdt. of Mines and Project Officer
and lastly he was chargesheeted for trying to stop the jeep
of Dy. C.M.E in order to assault him because a day prior to
that occurrence some dispute had occurred between the Dy.
C.M.E and the concerned workman. But, in my opinion, the
capital punishment of dismissal appears to be a bit excess
punishment. The concerned workman has suffered for last
12 years and has faced the ordial of remaining without
employment and also in defending a criminal case in which
he has been acquitted, the reinstatement of the concerned
workman without back wages and consequential benefits will
be sufficient punishment along with an undertaking by the
5concerned workman to properly behave with the senior
officer and not to indulge in any activity subversive of
maintenance, discipline and decorum in future, Therefore in
my opinion, in place of all the punishments including the
punishment of dismissal the reinstatement of the concerned
workman without back wages and other consequential
benefits on his giving an undertaking to properly behave
with the senior officer and will not indulge in any subversive
activities which is against the maintenance of discipline and
decorum, then it will be sufficient punishment to the
concerned workman.”
12. On perusal of the said paragraph of the impugned award, it is manifest
that the petitioner has not been exonerated from the charges, rather the
punishment of dismissal has been held to be excessive and disproportionate to
the charge and in place of the punishment of dismissal and other punishments,
reinstatement without back wages and other consequential reliefs has been held
to be appropriate punishment. I also find that the petitioner had not taken the
ground that he was not gainfully employed after the order of his dismissal.
13. In view of the above, the petitioner’s claim of back wages and the
consequential benefits has no legal basis. I find no illegality or arbitrariness in
the impugned award of learned Tribunal. The writ petition has no merit and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. However, there is no order as to costs.
(NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 9.7.2009
S.K/NAFR