Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1436 (DEL)

MANGAL SINGH v. MANAGEMENT OF PUNJAB BHAVAN

2006-08-25

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2006
( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of award dated 24. 9. 1999 whereby the Tribunal held that dismissal of the petitioner was perfectly legal and justified. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that petitioner was working as a sweeper with the respondent. He was charged with misconduct under Rule 22 (b) of the conduct Rules applicable to him, of misbehaving with the wife of another sweeper, namely, Shri Salig Ram. The allegation was that he had gone to the house of Salig Ram in drunken condition and tried to molest and misbehaved with his wife. An enquiry was conducted into the charges and Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges stood proved against the petitioner. The management on considering the Enquiry Report, awarded punishment of removal from the service and he was dismissed from service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute to the following effect:"whether the dismissal of Sh. Mangal Singh is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. " ( 3 ) THE Tribunal after considering the record of enquiry and the entire proceedings, came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted fairly. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to examine witnesses, cross-examine the witnesses of management. He did not raise any objection during the pendency of enquiry and about any bias of the Enquiry Officer. The punishment awarded to the workman was not excessive or disproportionate, as molestation of a lady was a serious matter and does not leave any scope for sympathy with the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award of Tribunal on the ground that Tribunal committed a serious error by treating issue of enquiry being proper and valid enquiry as preliminary issue. The Tribunal has not looked into the proceedings of enquiry at all. The proceedings would show that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer gave its first report on 15. 5. 1986 and thereafter he proceeded to record statement of Mr. R. L. Malhotra, who had held preliminary enquiry and after recording his statement, Enquiry Officer gave additional report on 5. 6. 1986. The proceedings of recording statement of Mr. The Enquiry Officer gave its first report on 15. 5. 1986 and thereafter he proceeded to record statement of Mr. R. L. Malhotra, who had held preliminary enquiry and after recording his statement, Enquiry Officer gave additional report on 5. 6. 1986. The proceedings of recording statement of Mr. R. L. Malhotra, were conducted at the back of the petitioner. The preliminary report of Mr. R. L. Malhotra was not provided to the petitioner. Labour Court had also not discussed all the grounds raised by the petitioner pointing out that enquiry was vitiated. The other ground raised is that the Labour Court did not apply its mind to re-appreciate the evidence and to see that the findings of the Enqiry Officer were perverse. ( 5 ) PETITIONER further submitted that the Labour Court's observation about punishment being not disproportionate, was not sustainable. Labour Court should have heard the parties on the aspect of malafides raised by the petitioner. Labour Court prejudicially judged the entire issue. ( 6 ) THE perusal of the award would show that apart from Enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct, petitioner had also made a confessional statement on 30. 6. 1985 that he had consumed liquor during his duty hours and that he went to the house of Salig Ram, knowing that Salig Ram was on duty. He pushed open the door of his house forcibly and sat on the cot on which wife of Salig Ram, Sweeper was lying. He demanded money from her which petitioner had loaned to her husband. He tried to molest her and during this scuffle her bangles got broken. ( 7 ) I consider that the Tribunal while considering the fate of enquiry has to look into the fact whether the petitioner was made aware of the charges against him and he was given a fair opportunity to defend himself. There is no procedure of conducting an enquiry laid down under any statute. An enquiry has to be conducted following broad principles of natural justice. An enquiry is not a criminal trial nor the conclusions at the enquiry are to be arrived at on the principles of criminal law. In the enquiry the Enquiry officer has to take into account the overall circumstances and the statement of all the witnesses and the entire material which has come on record, including confessional statement of delinquent. An enquiry is not a criminal trial nor the conclusions at the enquiry are to be arrived at on the principles of criminal law. In the enquiry the Enquiry officer has to take into account the overall circumstances and the statement of all the witnesses and the entire material which has come on record, including confessional statement of delinquent. The proof is not required beyond reasonable doubt as in the criminal trial. ( 8 ) ONCE the Tribunal finds that an inquiry has been conducted following broad principles of the natural justice, the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the inquiry officer. The Tribunal can interfere only in those circumstances where the conclusions of the inquiry officer were based on no evidences or were perverse, i. e. , contrary to the evidences which had come on record. I consider that in this case Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. Once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that confessional statement of the petitioner was not extracted from him such confessional statement can also be relied upon by the Tribunal as well as by the Enquiry officer. ( 9 ) THE other argument by the counsel for petitioner is that the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the misconduct. The misconduct of consuming liquor in the office premises during duty hours and than misbehaving with the wife of a colleague and trying to molest her is of considerably grave nature and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was not disproportionate to the misconduct and the Tribunal rightly held so. In V. Ramana vs A. P. SRTC 2006, SSC (Lands) 69 Supreme Court has held as under: in B. C. Chaturvedi V. Union of India (1995) 6 SSC 749: 1996 SCC (Lands) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44, it was observed : (SCC p. 762, para 18)"18 A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude of gravity of the misconduct. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude of gravity of the misconduct. They high Court/tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. ""the common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wenesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. " ( 10 ) IN view of the law laid down by Supreme Court that Tribunal or the High Court should not interfere with the decision of the authorities unless it was illegal or suffers from impropriety or so shocking to the conscience, I consider that the Tribunal was right in upholding the punishment awarded to the petitioner and consider the punishment was neither disproportionate nor shocking to the conscience. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, I find no force in this writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.