Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 135 (MP)

LAKHAN PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA v. PRESIDING OFFICER

2006-01-24

ABHAY M.NAIK

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition is directed against an award dated 5th March, 2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur in case No. CGIT/lc/r/24/93 contained in Annexure P-1. ( 2. ) CASE of the petitioner is that he was employed in Cantonment board, Sagar and was working on the post of Store Keeper w. e. f. May, 1985. Three Show-cause notices for three different charges were issued to the petitioner by the Cantonment Board, Sagar in the year 1987 which included the allegations about the deficiency of goods kept in the store, un account ability of tyres and theft of tyres. The charges were denied by the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner that a full- fledged enquiry was conducted merely with regard to charge of un account ability of tyres whereas only preliminary enquiry was conducted with regard to the remaining two charges i. e. , deficiency of the goods kept in the Stores and theft of tyres. However, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty for all the charges on the basis of the enquiry report. The petitioner was dismissed from services w. e. f. 1-8-1991. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication with the following term of reference:- "whether the management of the Cantonment Board, Sagar is justified in terminating the services of Shri L. P. Shrivastava, Ex. Junior Clerk w. e. f. 1-8-1991? If not what relief he is entitled to ?" ( 3. ) THE petitioner submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not based on any cogent reason. Before the Central Government Industrial tribunal, parties submitted their respective claims and rejoinder. It was stated by the petitioner that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and he was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself in a proper manner. It was further stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and highly disproportionate. ( 4. ) THE management on its part supported the enquiry on the ground that the same was held in a legal and proper manner. It was stated that the charges were duly proved and looking to the gravity of the matter, the punishment was just and proper. ( 5. ( 4. ) THE management on its part supported the enquiry on the ground that the same was held in a legal and proper manner. It was stated that the charges were duly proved and looking to the gravity of the matter, the punishment was just and proper. ( 5. ) THE Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, jabalpur vide award contained in Annexure P-1 upheld the penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been submitted challenging Annexure P-1. ( 6. ) BOTH the learned Counsels for the rival parties made their submissions which have been considered in the light of the record and the law governing the situation. ( 7. ) SHRI Arvind Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that no enquiry was held after issuance of chargesheet and findings of the enquiry Officer stand vitiated. According to him, the enquiry was not held properly in accordance with law and there was no proof that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct as levelled in the chargesheet. He further submitted that the evidence available on record was not even discussed. He referred to various pieces of evidence including that of the witness Abdul and urged that in view of the same, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are clearly perverse. ( 8. ) SHRI Anoop Nair, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award. He submitted that the scope of interference in the award is quite limited that, too, when there is no perversity and the punishment/penalty is not shockingly disproportionate. ( 9. ) AFORESAID is almost a settled law as already explained by the Apex court in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Subhash Chandra sharma and Others, reported as (2000) 3 SCC 324 . In Paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held:- "whether it is open to the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court or the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is, no longer, res integra, as the question has been answered by this court several times in its various decisions. In B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers power on the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court to apply its mind on the question of proportion of punishment of penalty. In B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers power on the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court to apply its mind on the question of proportion of punishment of penalty. It was held that this power is also available to the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution, though it was qualified with a limitation that while seized with this question as a Writ Court, interference is permissible only when the punishment/penalty is shockingly disproportionate. " ( 10. ) ENQUIRY proceedings are contained in Annexures P-5 to P-8. The petitioner has also submitted the statements of two of the witnesses as annexures P-9 and P-10. From the perusal of the documents on record, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the proceedings of the enquiry and the findings against the petitioner are also found to have been based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. Statement of the witness Abdul does not lead to contrary conclusion. The petitioner is estopped from disputing the regularity of the enquiry proceedings wherein he has participated without any objection. Thus, as regards the findings about the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, I do not find any infirmity. With respect to the quantum of punishment, I may successfully refer to the Apex Court decision in the case of divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A. T. Mane, reported as (2005) 3 scc 254 . The Honble Supreme Court of India in Paragraphs 12 and 13 has held:- "12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporations funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. " "13. This Court in the case of 5. 5. Hullikatti held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. " "13. This Court in the case of 5. 5. Hullikatti held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby with the quantum of punishment. " ( 11. ) IN view of the above referred law laid down by the Apex Court, this court does not find that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate, more so, warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of merits, however, without order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.