Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2303 (KAR)

SURESHKUMAR v. MANAGEMENT OF SRI. DHARMASTHALA

2019-12-13

P.B.BAJANTHRI

body2019
ORDER : 1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order, quashing the award passed by quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Hubballi on 12.09.2012 in REF. No. 10/2012, which is produced as Annexure-H issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order of directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into the service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. 2. The petitioner is said to have appointed as an accountant on 03.05.1999. While he was working as an accountant, he was placed under suspension on 13.09.2004 on the allegation that he was involved in a criminal case. The detail allegation has not been reflected in the order of suspension. It is only stated that, the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him regarding certain serious misconduct such as involving in a police case, tarnishing the image of the organization and committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the institution and committed act predicable to the interest of the institution. On 01.12.2004 charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner requested for revocation of suspension on 08.12.2005, but on 21.06.2006 the respondent-Management passed an order of termination with effect from 01.06.2006. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 04.05.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed reference bearing No. 10/2012, which was decided by the Labour Court, Hubballi, wherein points for adjudication is framed as under: xxxxxxxxxx 4. The Labour Court after due consideration, examination of WW-1 and MW-1 read with EX.W.1 to EX.W.5 and Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.15 proceeded to pass the following order: ORDER The reference bearing No. 87 IDG 2012 dated 14.03.2012 referred by the Government of Karnataka under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID. Act 1947 is hereby rejected as devoid of merits. Send a copy of this award to the Government for its due publication as contemplated under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court passed in reference No. 10/ 12, the present petition is filed. 5. Act 1947 is hereby rejected as devoid of merits. Send a copy of this award to the Government for its due publication as contemplated under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court passed in reference No. 10/ 12, the present petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioner was a permanent employee and he is governed by the Employee Service Rules 2003 of Sri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society (REGD). The respondent after noticing that the petitioner has involved in a criminal case, placed the petitioner under suspension and issued a charge sheet on 01.12.2004. Thereafter, without completing inquiry proceedings proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. Thus, the respondent violated the Employee Service Rules 2003 of Sri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society (REGD) in not holding domestic inquiry. Merely involvement in a criminal case does not warrant for dismissal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that the Rules 25(a) and 58(a) of the Employee Service Rules 2003 of Sri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society (REGD) provides for termination of employee without notice. Moreover, the petitioner is involved in a criminal case. He has been acquitted on 04.05.2010. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled for the relief sought in the present petition. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of termination and award of the Labour Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The crux of the matter in the present petition is "whether the petitioner could be terminated from the service without resorting to domestic inquiry and following due procedure in terms of the Employee Service Rules 2003 of Sri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society (REGD) or not ?" 9. Undisputed facts are that, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case for which he was placed under suspension and he was charge sheeted on 01.12.2004. Further, he was dismissed from service, which was confirmed, in the award by the Labour Court. 10. Perusal of the records, it is evident that for the serious allegation leveled against the petitioner, he was charge sheeted on 01.12.2004. Further, he was dismissed from service, which was confirmed, in the award by the Labour Court. 10. Perusal of the records, it is evident that for the serious allegation leveled against the petitioner, he was charge sheeted on 01.12.2004. The Disciplinary Authority without completion of the inquiry adopted short circuit method in terminating the service of the petitioner on 21.06.2006, while invoking clause 25(a) & 58(a) of the Employee Service Rules 2003. The Disciplinary Authority had initiated the domestic inquiry against the petitioner by framing charge sheet. There is no provision for short circuit method of terminating the petitioner from service. Moreover before invoking clause 25(a) & 58(a) of the Employee Service Rules 2003, competent authority has not withdrawn the initiation of domestic inquiry. In other wards initiation of domestic inquiry is intact and consequently disciplinary authority cannot side track and impose penalty of termination or dismissal from service. Penalty of termination/dismissal is one of the major penalty, for which petitioner is entitled to ample opportunities to defend his case, in terms of the Employee Service Rules 2003 of Sri.Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society (REGD). This issue has not been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority or the Labour Court. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, the petition stands allowed. Order of dismissal dated 21.06.2006 and award dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court is set aside. The petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits from the date of service till reinstatement with 50% backwages. Petitioner be reinstated within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and 50% backwages be paid within three months.