Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1243 (AP)

M. Ramabrahmam v. Director

2014-10-07

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. These two writ appeals are filed assailing the common order, dated 30.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 3815 and 12324 of 1999. 2. The appellant was employed as Secretarial Assistant in the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, 1st respondent herein. He was issued a charge memo, dated 05.02.1994 wherein five charges were framed. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension through order 17.05.1994. This was followed by the supplementary charge memo, dated 01.07.1994 wherein two more charges were framed. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge memos. Not satisfied with that, the 1st respondent appointed an enquiry officer. Through his report, dated 14.11.1994, the enquiry officer held that charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 are proved. The 1st respondent examined the report. However, he did not press charge No. 5. Taking into account the findings on charges 3, 4 and 6, the 1st respondent passed order, dated 21.02.1995 removing the appellant from service. 3. The appellant filed I.D. No. 179 of 1997 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). Through award, dated 26.10.1998, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the appellant without backwages, but with continuity of service. While the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 3815 of 1999, challenging the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant, the latter filed W.P. No. 12324 of 1999 feeling aggrieved by the denial of backwages. 4. Through the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed W.A. No. 12324 of 1999 and allowed W.P. No. 3815 of 1999, setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration and disposal. The appellant filed both these appeals feeling aggrieved by allowing of W.P. No. 3815 of 1999 on the one hand and dismissal of W.P. No. 12324 of 1999 on the other hand. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The appellant seems to be engaged in the activities of the union of employees. That in turn made him to interact with the higher officials of the 1st respondent. The charges farmed against the appellant are mostly in relation to such activities. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The appellant seems to be engaged in the activities of the union of employees. That in turn made him to interact with the higher officials of the 1st respondent. The charges farmed against the appellant are mostly in relation to such activities. They read: Charge No. 1: Sri M. Ramabrahmam, Secretarial Assistant, had approached the Executive Registrar, along with some other person and pressurised him to withdraw the W.P. filed by the Institute for which the Executive Registrar did not agree. Since, then he has been: (i) making attempts to defame the Executive Registrar. (ii) Abusing him openly in the presence of his colleagues verbally and in writing. The above actions of Sri. Ramabrahmam amounted to influencing his superior officer to further his interest in respect of a matter pertaining to his service in the Institute and also violated Sub-Rule (18) of Rule 21 of NIMS Employees Conduct Rules. Charge No. 2: He had submitted a letter stating that the administration had utterly failed and requested that action might be taken against the then Assistant Registrar (Administration) and the then AFC (Audit) for leaking out the official information. By criticising the administration he has violated discipline which had constituted an act of indiscipline and amounted to misconduct. His action has violated sub-rule (5) of Rule 21 of the Employees Conduct Rules. Charge No. 3: Sri Ramabrahmam, Secretarial Assistant has published and distributed leaflets dated 25-9-92 and 13-11-92 bringing the Institute into disrepute. He criticised the management, and made false allegations against some officials of the Institute and thus violated Rule No. 6(a) and sub-rule (10) and Rule-21 of the NIMS employees conduct rules amounting to misconduct within the meaning of the provisions contained in the above rules. Charge No. 4: Sri Ramabrahmam has got printed a pamphlet dated 12.11.93 with title Open letter to Sri Ch. Koteswara Rao making false allegations against the Executive Registrar and throwing challenges on him and put them in wide circulation to almost all employees. His action in having printed and circulated the telugu pamphlet among all the employees, officers and others is in contravention of Rules i.e., Rule 8(a) and sub-rules (1), (7), (9), (10), (18), (50) and (51) of Rule 21 of the NIMS employees conduct rues. His action in having printed and circulated the telugu pamphlet among all the employees, officers and others is in contravention of Rules i.e., Rule 8(a) and sub-rules (1), (7), (9), (10), (18), (50) and (51) of Rule 21 of the NIMS employees conduct rues. Charge No. 5: Sri Ramabrahmam, Secretarial Assistant in his pamphlet dated 13.11.92 had informed the employees that he was going to undertake a peaceful Dharna in front of the Establishment, branch where the then President of the Employees Association, was sitting and made an appeal to his well wishers to express their sympathy to his Dharna. This action is in violation of sub-rules (9), (10), (18), (13), (48), (50), (51) of Rue 21 of the conduct rules amounting to misconduct. Charge No. 6: That Sri Ramabrahmam, Secretarial Assistant, M.R.D. (now under suspension) got a class on Psychology to be held on 7.3.1994 at 2.00 P.M. cancelled by misrepresentation and misled the students to attend a class conducted by himself without jurisdiction during office hours in violation of NIMS Employees Conduct Rules. Charge No. 7: Sri M. Ramabrahmam, Secretarial Assistant has given a press statement that he was placed under suspension because he has exposed the illegal activities of the Institute. He has approached the press without obtaining permission of the competent authority and made false allegations against the Institute in the press. 7. In a way, charges 3 and 4 constitute one charge with different components. The enquiry officer held that charges 1, 2 and 7 are not proved. The disciplinary authority himself took the view that charge No. 5 is not grave enough to constitute the subject matter of enquiry and omitted the same. He issued show cause notice to the appellant only in relation to charges 3, 4 and 6 and proposed the punishment. Ultimately, an order of removal was passed. 8. The Labour Court held that charges 3, 4 and 6 are proved and did not interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer. However, it exercised discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and directed reinstatement of the appellant into service with attendant benefits. It felt that denial of backwages would be a punishment enough, for the proved charges. 9. The Labour Court held that charges 3, 4 and 6 are proved and did not interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer. However, it exercised discretion under Section 11-A of the Act and directed reinstatement of the appellant into service with attendant benefits. It felt that denial of backwages would be a punishment enough, for the proved charges. 9. One of important aspects to be taken into account in the instant case is that consequent upon the award of the Labour Court, the 1st respondent reinstated the appellant into service on 22.12.1998 and it is thereafter, that it has filed W.P. No. 3815 of 1999. A serious doubt arises as to whether the 1st respondent can be said to have had any cause of action or genuine grievance vis-a-vis the award, once it has reinstated the appellant, on its own accord. The very maintainability of W.P. No. 3815 of 199 becomes debatable. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge has virtually acted as an appellate authority over the award passed by the Labour Court. 10. The very objective of enacting Section 11-A of the Act is to ensure that an employer does not take recourse to serious punishments by pressing into service, the findings on trivial charges. If one takes into account the charges that are held proved against the appellant, it emerges that two of them were in relation to publication of pamphlets and the third one was about taking a class. 11. As regards first two i.e., charges 3 and 4, it is not even mentioned that the appellant has used any derogatory language. Though publication of pamphlets in respect of an organization would have its own impact, for the most part of it, the activities of trade unions tend to justify the same. It is only when baseless allegations or scurrilous remarks are made, that the publication would amount to an act of misconduct. Charge No. 6, which was proved, is equally trivial in nature. If the appellant has taken class to a set of students, it cannot be treated as an act of serious misconduct. It was not even alleged that he entered the classroom forcibly or defied the instructions of the Head of the Institution. The very fact that an unauthorised person was able to give lecture to the students would disclose the lack of proper administrative control. It was not even alleged that he entered the classroom forcibly or defied the instructions of the Head of the Institution. The very fact that an unauthorised person was able to give lecture to the students would disclose the lack of proper administrative control. If the appellant was able to do such things, it was equally open to anyone to do so. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service was totally unwarranted in the facts of the case. 12. If the learned Single Judge was of the view that mere denial of backwages would not meet the ends of the justice, the punishment of appropriate description could have been awarded. The remanding of the matter would only keep the issue, which took its birth in the year 1994; alive almost for one more decade. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is imposed upon the appellant. 13. Hence, W.A. No. 1203 of 2012 filed against W.P. No. 12324 of 1999 is dismissed. W.A. No. 1220 of 2014 is allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge referable to W.P. No. 3815 of 1999. Consequently, W.P. No. 3815 of 1999 is partly allowed modifying the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 179 of 1996 to the effect that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect shall stand inflicted upon the appellant, in addition to denial of backwages. 14. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.