'VS/Q L3ié~ S__L1}:)b_a """ " 'V
AFIELE 7, I3iQCk.'A.'
Domiuxf,
..(B_y St"i'.fM..N.Pra$a1"1I12-2., for
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED TI-IIS THE 213-'? DAY or nEcEMEER «2ai'1L:§:A'
PRESENT AA A %&
TI-IE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE
AND . V.
THE HON'BLE MR.
WRIT APPF42-EL N(3;S8'vS(j'1i;V'"'1.£)99 '(S)'
BETWEEN:
The Regional
Indian AirlH1eS"LE1_nitSd'_,_ _ _ '
CHENNAI -V ' .. APPELLANT.
(By Smt.Sii"ET}ié1EAAVh;1n{'fi.i,
Sri. K._Ka.stL1.fi; ;r7§(iV';) 4' '
AND:
Mr.B.Bg§baiH..
S'c1__f '13.1fiiI_c_ii:f1g_§,
B.1)'.A'; ,.._MIG« F_!.at:f;s,
.-...--.........«
;aANGAL.pHE*---571. .. RESPONDENT.
" _ '"~_.Sri.I".S.RzTjg()pa1,Adv.)
*_=i=fi=I<j!<_*_*W=f<_*
Mb
{J
This Appeal is {fled 1n1.ci<ér Sc-,écti0r1 4 of the Karriataka
Ifigh (hurt. Act, praying to set, aside t'h<: order dated
21.09. E998 passed in Writ Pstiliimi N0.18730/ £994.
This Appezaj having l)(.'.(_'.f1 heard and res§:;i*v:€%'(3. for
Judgmsrit, this day, SATYANARAYANA J., 1')r0n0i1,1fi~:?_§3ci"'the
followirlgi 'A ».
JUDGMENT
The resporident. — Indian] AjA_rIi.1.’1és ‘:4_LiIf1iI;e(‘]V,«
W.P.N0. 18730 / 1994 is i1’I_1pug:1i..1’1g_ t1.1sOr_cicr ,
Passed in the said Writ I'<-risii.i0'ri1. V'
2. The facts Ieading 1f’c:5t;.’m’st_ f:§:11_.r2{fCo’t1»:’t appeal are as
under:
Resporiplent “axg_I’1i!é he was working as Traffic
Officer of the éipgx-zllsrit.i”-alisgeci to have involved in serious
I-‘,;ni’sCorid1ic5ti’i ‘Ai.r_i_”i’i’saif<i cnq1_1_i_Ify, appsiiarit also i.'n_si'.it':,1te(1 an enquiry
7.§1pp’oj.nti.r1g*..-(3’r1(: R.Push.pavane-uri as e:nquiry cifficezr, which
on 24.04.1993 and c:()nClu(i<:d on 29.11.1993,
T é_14fier"ieXa1niI1ir1g 17 uri.t:r1ess€s and rnarking ()fII1()I'C than 100
documents on behalf of management, appellant herein.
Thereafter, enquiry officer subrnitted a finding gixdng
for arriving at conclusion holding the respondent 'oi'.
the charges alleged.
3. Pursuant to the said finding of report’; lsllowp
cause notice was issued on tllleierespoildentl’
proposing punishment pserxvrioeivvwhich was
challenged by the 1994 which
was initially dated 14.09.1994
Single Judge: the appellant to
complete and pass final orders.
However, tl1e”‘–appellat_nf pennitted to give effect to the
said order, until orders to be passed in the said Writ
AF’ve_titiVon_._ S»:uhsr::qu_ently, er1q’uiry was completed and the order
was ‘passed’fojr..ren1ova] of respondent from service by order
dated On such order being passed, respondent
alltherein}—petitioner before Single Judge, made necessary
__a:a’1er’rdtnent to the Writ Petition filed by him. Thereafter the
‘wsmjs
Single Judge by an orcier claieci 21.()9.i998 allowed tlfict said
Writ Petition. filed by the i’€S[)()I1(‘l()’fll. * employee ht)jlltli.tig:”‘i.11at
the enquiry conclucteci by that appellant is defe(:-alive’and 4_
the order of his removal i’rom servi(:(锑wa,s rés.é.rvx”1t1gl f
liberty to the a.ppc;:1lant l1er<::in_ to iiollflygiie-ililtivzi l<é;.1lqu.iry
the resporiclent W dc-:linq'ue1i1.i':V 1;-mi
certain reliefs to the rI1t of full
salary from the date of he will be re-
insiituted with and also for
payment of days from the date of
receipt of is continued under
SE1SI)€I’lSi()Il ‘iir’1_i,il is coinpleted, he shall be
paid sL1ly2sist;<311(:¥:»._all0Wan(.:eT i:1'1(:lu(iiI1g increments in addition
fi'['h{;'V 1)z1yéi5lc': to him as above.
4.1 iiiiciiiig of tile Single Judge is under challenge
Vl’i:_1 i;his”‘~..a;)pe’a;l;’dn the ground that the View of the Single
l iliaiiilie e-nquiry is (lef<=:(:ti.Ve for non issue of copies of
(_'ic')_Ci::.IVIi'(.:;'1'is peri.ail1'1i1'1g to (.3131 and Vigilairlcc ('}I.'fic€r is not valid
and eont1fa.ry to iaw laid down by the Apex Court. and the
I'3£lSOI1S given. by Sirigie Judge that opporturiity to__ cross
examination was not granted is contrary to the i'C()(')Tx(31S:'§"fijhat
the fimiing of the Sirigle Jucige so far as
()bS(','I'VII1g that non pr()dneti().r'1. of vci'()''c:uI11e.:_f.j1t.s_..1§ev15t:a.i1'1–ii1gxWto ' f
'mvestig,'at.i()n_ has vit'iate<'i the e1'1(1t1ier3'%'«is";r_1(A3t: e(ir'::eet.,. wh,e'1~1Vvthe
said documents were not reii(::i::.""up()ri' 'fQ1*=,tIf"1_e ef
arriving at the findings iVE*1~.t1i1C ei1i'qt,1nti:jf.""eAFurttier, though the
preliminary enquiry report itstibtriiitted..:\b3?_'.:N.'P.Raghavan was
not relied. upoi"; etttempt on the part of
the Singlettitictigefeto production of doctumesnt
sought :f()rV'*a1i1Qu:1tswte.fc:;é1ppi.fe(:i21t'ion of evidence, which is
not perrn.fiss'i.1)x1te ..1m<ieif._Arttiele 229 of the Co'nstit.ut.ior1 of India.
,*'Wher1V-ithctife is sut"ti(:ie-'zit evidence to prove the charges,
ie-:;jarr1.e('i ..Str1.gie'JIi'c1ge s1.1_0u1(i not have eoI1si.dered the same as
_ease"0f"i'1oAeifidence and should have interfered with the
vfi';'I(iiIlg'uuOf "ehqu_iry. .Further the firiding to the effect that
"tiiie wit;neSses are spcamrag e1't)out the contents of the
d()(;1,:;Ir1erj.–ts mzirkeci t'I'1:1fough them is also L3I1t('.I1E1b1(', and
R». /1»:
()
contrary to the deeisiorl in K1.1ld:i_p Si.I’1g1″1 Vs. State of Punjab
reported in 1997(1) LLN Page-3 £32 and in the light of the said
decision, strirtt proof of evidence not 2.-zpplieable to the
domestic enquiry and also challenged the same on tl:1evgfound
that the principle laid down by the Apex
Pooran Mal case and State Bank of Bikam.’1i,r’ ‘aI1{i*..Jai_;)’ttr V
Srinath Gupta reported 111 1997 [1] IQLN lSTat;.;a’of
Mysore Vs. Shivabasappa ll reported in
1963 SC 375. ‘Ifl1<'i:"lr.ll'ti() judgements are
not properly of the learned Single
Judge is the appreciation of
overall evidence availatjlle onalreciorti.
5. It is ea-se1.olt”«f_:l1e appellant that in the instant
teaspe, at/l”ie1jeV’ i.1jreg11l’a:’rit-ies have taken place in respect of
sliipmentyp baskets, excess quantities received are
‘ ‘=.___,deiivered im:l1ediiat.e1y as they are pe”risha.bIe in nature.
-4 lf’_j-,.’1fl3’e,rei_or<: " iaz'1sp'ite oi" eor1<:rete evidence avai_1ab.1e regarding
ex.eess_liasket:s of goods which are un–n1an.i.fested or properly
€')Vid(",l"1(3C(.1 through. the witness S1'dd.:-1ia.h, the same not
properly appreciated and the learned Single Ju(ig-V1.9’Avg-%.E’!)(§X (‘Jourt which are subsequemily modified
V l and deviated the earlier judgments by later judgments of
K AA.pexV”Court and the reliance placed on some of the
are not directly applicable to the facts of the ease
the same will have no force in the case on hand.
l/’15’/aK_,,?
9
or sta.teI1’1cI1t: relied Lapori in the ci’1q’1.1i3y should be prcflticed.
In the iristam case, wh.e1’1 t1’1e sarrie is C{}Ii’11’)li(3d with, the
enquiry should not be held. to be vitiated. It is ais.e~«t.he of
the appellant that when documents are
witriesses by furnishiiig copies to the re.s1A)(:ri_c1e’i1’t’ho1.diij1g,the
same inadmissibie in (:’.V1′(1€fjI’l{‘2E?¢__iS o’Vppv()Se(i ti:J”ti1e’_rati;:)
down by the Apex Court in the Irizittcr of reporteci in
AIR 1963 SC 375 and it ~–;i{l:,<',-(_) i'ewappreciatior1 of
evidence, which is not permi_s:sib–1e 226 of the
Constitution of
7. ti1er.e evidence avaflable on
record to cmfneto’ .tI1preciat._iori of the contentions
it Cadvancegl tVheACa1)1)c21.iar’1t to the ef:fect that the deiinquerit
–. i.”,ernj)!oyee “an undesirable clement”, whose ceriiinuaiice in
*mf\«?’§
e’:I1ploymc111: would jeopardise the irlterest of the Company
apart from the lives of passe1’1_ge.rs. ‘I’heref0re, the relief of re-
ir1staiene1ent. and only reas()nai:.)1c comperisation as iridicated
by the Apex Court in caieria of cases should be g1ja1’1«i.ed._j’is} riot
properly appreciated and considered by
Judge. It is also contended that tl1e:=.I:earr1e@?l Stogle-dt1’;1g.ew»:.11as
not appreciated where public iriterestllis i11Vo1<Je'(l.,;vserviees
employees can be terrninated wit_h:oL1:t .'r1o1(1ir1g– . In the
light of that, in the iI1starl'i'e'arse~,Lthouégh"elaborated enquiry is
conducted into ther'm_ai.t.er';"alter giiysirig"s1.itfi'(:ient opport unity
to the czrijiploycefio _lc:f'warcl_VVliiVs defence and thereafter
order passed for l1is.""re"tr1sg)'v-allyirom service should not have
been set ~Qr1v.t,ecl'_1r1ieal ::_gr()urkd. The learned Single Judge
alsg failed to"»apVp'reciate that on the relevant date though
respori'Eien'tA.employee was not on duty, he was present in
tlie__ place o'l'..oczéiuréferitte which is confirmed by M.W.5 and the
it "'v'reasoi1._s the learned Sirigle Judge in that behalf is
" iyj'irieorrecrt,"Vi_é\y. It is also tlleir case that even before the order
._oi'.fre1h"oVal dated ()4.()5.1995 given effect to, respoI1de:nt
m,"V}
could not have el1a}le'nge(i tl'1.e same, Where the regulations
provide for an appeal before Challenging the same ':')et.'e.f'e this
Jourt in a writ jurisdiction.
8. Learned Counsel appearing ..~for_ A ap[)eVl<Iant to'
substantiate the af()r<.:sai(:l g.r()1.11':(.ls on W:l1icl'1 the ap
filed Challenging the order leVa';__r1{:r.–ll -judge'
supported by eatena of jl,1.:(ZlgII1(31?.l'S Cofir1~.,an'd also the
Apex Court. The aiforesatdll the appellant
were negated by:.tl'=lA€::V the delinquent –
1″espo}:1dent sfibstantiate the judgment
of the 1earn,_ed–. E3ing1’le”J.,titlgelV .is”proper and reasonable.
9. After li’:’1,1r1s<3l for the appellant and
vresI)onfi'<5::1t'and 'g;()j;j1_g.t11r()I1g11 the findings of the learned
lS1.§;g1e"»t_I11clgee lmpugned order, it is seen that the
has gone through the aforesaid
contentions' light. of the judgments cited by the counsel
ap[)'<%a1*i1;g for t.'E1.e appellant – management and the
L/';/'\-?
re,s.-:.po1:e1d<_:.r1t ~– employee in the writ petition 3.r1(i on
app.re<:i.z1t,ior1 of the same, 1121:; l'r21,m(:<'l the fol.1ow'mg iSS1..'l(;'.S2
1. Whether the enquiry conducted against
the petitioner was legal, valid, fair
was in accordance with t.he rele=;§fQ%,’t”r1t».’_’
Regulations?
2. Whether the rtinciings 19«<:<:01*'<ile:d 'l
Enquiry Officer are andhvlalid? .
3. Whetlrler the p__e11alty ‘removal’. p*ropose’ 5:,
4. o tvl1at.V1;elie_fl ‘»petitione1′ is entitled to’?
grad l1as_§Iigl1tly aizsjilvert-1(l each one of them with reference to
the availachlir. nfi:;i.t(zri21.l on. record and has come to the right
C<)r1lcl,:1ti.~:»iorvi'Vi.li'_"–§)a}ftla1iy allowing the writ petition filed by the
respor1det1t*.;~ hempiloyee l'1erei11 and the learned Single Judge
"lies figlttly decline<:l to {1OIlSl(l€I' the peti_t:ioner's prayer to
"Ruhr 30 of the St;a;m_l_ing ()rn:ier Regulations is Void.
:w«V,-1L?
i
10. Though the learned Single Judge has quashed the
impugnetl order so far as removal of’respon(ler1t from Vserviee,
holding that the said removal from service is not p1’eee(41’e_d.~by
valid and proper enquiry. The eharge sheet based. ‘(}{lv”‘.tfii”t§’h.V’.
the enquiry was conducted is not””Vqt1a.s}j1ped;.« Liberty “is
reserved to the appella.r1t l1e1’e:i,’n to 4’i1ol’d a der1Aova’~ eiildqtiiiyp
against the petitioner on the sa1r1’e,ei1arges’*i’_n’aeeordariee with
law by compliance with .of1a.aturaIV justice, if the
appellant so desires. ‘ll-‘.fCi)_’rff:ter1tion of the
appellant that tl4’e”i’pip1_1gx1ecl in law cannot be
accepted opportunity being
reserved uthe t._:lA”i~1e:~rt:i.:r1 to hold denova enquiry
against the respo1_jid’en’t 9’-e:1:r’iploye.e herein. It is also seen that
the_:iattire”lof the charges levelled against the
respo.n<ieiaif'ar1d'(i the evidence available on record and the
' Vvlfaczt being ')€IE"1dlI1 for ion time, the learned
_ ._ Cl FY .e I Q g
H has rightly awarded payment. of full back salary.
4'§'t._is._Vf1';:'rt'l1er observed by the learned Single Judge that if the
re.-:sp'oI'a('ie.r1t, herein c:or1i:ih.ue to be under suspension till the
41
in;
Com Ietion of czlenova er1(z.z:i’ , 1)urs’:1ar’1t {’10 the 0.13211′ fees which
1 77
are already framed 21gaJ’ns'{: him.
AGV.