Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 262 (KAR)

M. R. HEERA SINGH v. HMT LTD.

2004-04-05

R.GURURAJAN

body2004
R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER joined HMT Watch Factory in the year 1963. He was promoted from time to time. He has put in about 27 years of service in the organisation. He retired from service on 31-7-1994. On 23-1-1990 petitioner could not come to factory in the morning due to some personal work. He went to factory to join the duty for latter half of the period at 11. 30 AM. Due to traffic jam at the level crossing near Gokul which is on the way to the factory, petitioner could not reach the factory in time. e. , 11. 30 Am but he could reach at 11. 45 AM. He entered the factory and assumed duty at 11. 45 AM thinking that he could get attestation of his card by his superior Officer as he enjoyed that special privilege. There is also a register kept near the gate in which some officers use to sign when they enter. However, this practice is not mandatory. The petitioner had informed two of his colleagues that he would be coming late to the duty and requested them to attend some urgent work. The same was also brought to the notice of Assistant general Manger (PI) when he was asked of late coming. He was punctual and prompt throughout his career. On 27-1-1990, petitioner received a letter in terms of Annexure-A seeking explanation on or before 3-2-1990 as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner on the charge that his card was punched at 7-05 hrs by proxy but actually he attended the duty at 11-45 AM on 23-1-90. Explanation was submitted and thereafter enquiry was conducted and witness was examined. Enquiry Officer submitted his finding against the petitioner. Thereafter a punishment order in terms of Annexure-G was passed. Petitioner filed a writ Petition in this Court and this Court remanded the matter for reconsideration. After remand, the appellate authority has chosen to reject the appeal in terms of Annexure-Q. With these facts petitioner is before me. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. They object to the prayer sought for by the petitioner. They also justify their action in the matter. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. After remand, the appellate authority has chosen to reject the appeal in terms of Annexure-Q. With these facts petitioner is before me. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. They object to the prayer sought for by the petitioner. They also justify their action in the matter. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner apart from arguing the case on merits, invites my attention to the material on record to contend that a major punishment has been issued for no fault of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the present punishment is contrary to Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the respondent. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. From the material on record, it is seen that a charge sheet was issued in terms of Annexure-A. Annexure-B is an explanation. An enquiry has been conducted and parties have been examined. Proceedings have been filed at annexure-B. A reading of the proceedings would show that petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunity. I am satisfied that rules of natural justice have been followed in the case on hand. In fact no argument was advanced with regard to denial of opportunity. ( 6 ) ENQUIRY Officer has given his report. In the report, the enquiry officer states that circumstantial evidence would suggest that the petitioner has not entered in the register perhaps because he does not want any written record as proof of having entered inside the factory at 11. 45 AM as his card was already punched. Petitioner was also held guilty of all the charges leveled against him. This report has been accepted and the respondents have issued a punishment order in terms of Annexure-G. In annexure-G, the Deputy General Manager (PI) has passed the following order; "examining all aspects of the case and taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct, and other extenuating circumstances and also keeping in view the vital interest of the organisation your rank is reduced to the minimum of the next lower grade. e. , PS-II as Assistant administrative Officer', with immediate effect. " thereafter petitioner filed a detailed appeal before the authorities. e. , PS-II as Assistant administrative Officer', with immediate effect. " thereafter petitioner filed a detailed appeal before the authorities. The appellate authority rejected the appeal in terms of Annexure-A, which was successfully challenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 8195/99 filed by him. This Court in the said Writ Petition ruled as under; "after going through the order of the appellate authority, I find that no opportunity if hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Therefore the order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside as it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. After looking at the charge framed against the petitioner, the appellate authority has not considered whether the punishment imposed to the petitioner is proportionate to the charge framed against him. Even on this ground also, the order requires reconsideration by the appellate authority. " after remand, the appellate authority has not chosen to consider as to whether the present punishment is proportionate to the misconduct levelled against the petitioner or not in a detailed manner, required by the appellate authority. Admittedly, petitioner did report for duty and the only charge is that he reported for duty at 11. 45 AM and the punched card shows that he had reported for duty at 7. 05 AM. There is also no direct evidence and even the enquiry officer has chosen to given his finding only on circumstantial evidence. Charges are covered by the discipline rules. Rule 22 deals with general conduct. Rule 23. 2 deals with punishment for misconduct and appeal. It provides for major and minor punishments. Admittedly, major punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. Major punishments read as under; 1. Withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect for more than 6 months. 2. Reduction to a lower grade or post or to lower stage in the same grade (Pay scale ). 3. Dismissal from service. In the case on hand, the appellate authority has not considered the quantum of punishment in the given set of circumstances particularly in the light of the finding of this Court. Except saying that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct proved, there is no reason forthcoming in the order. Even otherwise, it is seen that the punishment provided in terms of the rules is reduction to a lower grade or post or to lower stage in the same grade. Except saying that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct proved, there is no reason forthcoming in the order. Even otherwise, it is seen that the punishment provided in terms of the rules is reduction to a lower grade or post or to lower stage in the same grade. In the case on hand, the punishing authority has not only reduced the post of the petitioner to that of AAO but he has also reduced the grade to the minimum of the next lower grade. This in my view would be running against 23. 2. 2. (b) of the rules. The permissible punishments are, 1. reduction to the lower grade or post or 2. reduction to the lower stage in the same grade. There cannot be any reduction to the lower grade and also to the lower post, as has been done in the case on hand. The words used in the rules are 'or' and not 'and'. Unfortunately, the appellate authority has not bestowed his attention to the punishment imposed in the case on hand. In these circumstances, the matter requires reconsideration. ( 7 ) I must also notice two judgments rendered in somewhat similar circumstances. In ILR 2000 kar SN NO. 69, (WP No. 34282/ 1995 DD 12-4-2000) this Court noticed a similar provision. The provision provided for reduction to a lower grade or post and reduction to a lower stage in time-scale. Under the regulations, the Disciplinary Authority can impose a punishment of reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons. The Court ruled that the expression 'or' occurs between two punishments. It is a particle coordinating the two parts of the clause and creates an alternative between them. The Court ruled that only one punishment can be granted. 7. In these circumstances, Writ Petition is allowed. Annexure-Q is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner with regard to punishment being disproportionate to the charge and he is also directed to consider as to what punishment is to be given in terms of 23. 2. 2 (b ). While considering, the authority may also take into consideration, the petitioner's retirement from service and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 2. 2 (b ). While considering, the authority may also take into consideration, the petitioner's retirement from service and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Time for completing the proceedings is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.