Violation of natural justice in the issuance of the show cause notice and the need for the Disciplinary Authority to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to show cause against the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer.

JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI B.P., J.: - By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-employee challenges order dated 26-4-2004 passed by Labour Court, Amravati in U.L.P Complaint No. 74 of 2002 rejecting his prayer for grant of interim relief and Judgment dated 11-6-2004 delivered by Industrial Court in U.L.P Revision No. 30 of 2004.

2. I have heard Advocate A.M. Ghare for the petitioner and Advocate N.P. Dhote for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. As the point involved is very short, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

3. Brief facts giving rise for filing of this petition can be summarised as under:

The petitioner is Gram Sevak in the employment of the respondents and on 11-9-2000 he was issued charge-sheet for various misconducts including misappropriation, irregular expenditure, not making Gram Panchayat records available for inspection etc. The employee in reply to the charge-sheet denied all the charges and he also pointed out that there is no irregular expenditure. About record he pointed out that the records have been handed over to Officer Shri M.W. Raut on 8-6-2000 and he has got acknowledgment thereof. It appears that Departmental Enquiry was then conducted against the petitioner by respondents and the respondents served show cause notice dated 31-8-2002 upon him. In this show cause notice the Disciplinary Authority viz. Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 Zilla Parishad states that charges No. 1-A and B, charge No. 2 are proved against the petitioner and proposed to impose punishment of dismissal and recovery of Rs. 15,95,480/- in one stroke. Enquiry report is served upon petitioner with this show cause notice.

4. Upon receipt of this show cause notice, the petitioner filed U.L.P. Complaint No. 74 of 2002 under section 28 read with Schedule IV, Item 1 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act") before the Labour Court, Amravati. The petitioner in his complaint apart from pointing out his innocence in this matter made a grievance that the very purpose of issuing show cause notice to him is being defeated. He also pointed out that in criminal application which reached this Court, this Court made observations that the petitioner alone is not beneficiary of the alleged misdeeds. The petitioner contended that he has been denied opportunity to make effective representation in this respect before the Disciplinary Authority. Alongwith complaint he also moved an application under section 30(2) of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P Act and sought stay of further proceedings. The learned Labour Court after hearing both the sides held that the petitioner has failed to point out any prejudice caused to him on account of non-supply of enquiry report or defective show cause notice and therefore, refused to grant him any interim relief. However, it granted the petitioner time of fifteen days to file reply to the show cause notice.

5. The petitioner then filed revision under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act which came to be registered as U.L.P. Revision No. 30 of 2004 and in the said revision he pointed out that show cause notice without enquiry report is illegal. He further raised grievance about the observations made by this Court in Criminal Application No. 60 of 2001 decided on 29-1-2001 in which the High Court made prima facie observation that the petitioner is not sole beneficiary and such things cannot happen without connivance of such officers and Members of Gram Panchayat. The learned Member of the Industrial Court after hearing both the sides held that the reasoning given by the Labour Court is just and proper and no interference was called for at interlocutory stage, it therefore, dismissed the revision. It again granted time of fifteen days to the petitioner to file reply to the impugned show cause notice. This order has been challenged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document