Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Adhar Gosavi – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12267 of 2022
Decided on : 21-12-2022
Corruption - Labour Dispute - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] - Summary of Acts and Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Summary: The court discussed the standard of proof needed in a domestic inquiry, emphasizing that strict rules of evidence are not applicable and even hearsay evidence is admissible. The court highlighted the principles of preponderance of probability and reiterated that the charge in a domestic inquiry is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The court also emphasized that the pendency of a criminal trial has no effect on the findings recorded in a departmental inquiry. The court concluded that the evidence of the complainant was sufficient to prove the first element of the charge of demand of illegal gratification and that the second element of acceptance of illegal gratification was proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The court found that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the order of dismissal from service despite the availability of sufficient evidence in support of the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court and Labour Court.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of the petitioner/Transport Corporation, was arrested on allegations of demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The domestic inquiry conducted by the petitioner failed to examine a crucial witness and resulted in the dismissal of the respondent. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal order, and the Industrial Court confirmed the decision. The petitioner challenged these orders in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the dismissal order despite the availability of sufficient evidence in support of the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court concluded that the evidence of the complainant was sufficient to prove the first element of the charge of demand of illegal gratification and that the second element of acceptance of illegal gratification was proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court and Labour Court.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the fairness of the domestic inquiry, the standard of proof needed in a domestic inquiry, the relevance of corroborative evidence, and the impact of the pendency of a criminal trial on the findings recorded in a departmental inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of preponderance of probability and reiterated that the charge in a domestic inquiry is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The court also highlighted that the pendency of a criminal trial has no effect on the findings recorded in a departmental inquiry. The court concluded that the evidence of the complainant was sufficient to prove the first element of the charge of demand of illegal gratification and that the second element of acceptance of illegal gratification was proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court and Labour Court.
JUDGMENT :
A. THE CHALLENGE
1. Petitioners challenge Judgment and order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Dhule in Revision (ULP) No.14 of 2019 thereby confirming the Judgment and order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No. 01/2017. The Labour Court, Dhule has declared the order dated 20.01.2016 imposing penalty of dismissal on Respondent as illegal and has set aside the same with a further direction to reinstate him in service along with full back wages and continuity of service from 20.01.2016.
B. FACTS
2. The respondent joined the services of petitioner/Transport Corporation on the post of driver in the year 1990. During the course of his service, he came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. On 27.10.2014, respondent was arrested by the Anti Corruption Bureau on allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- and Crime No. 3274/2014 came to be registered against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The respondent was issued memorandum of charge sheet dated 02.08.2014 alleging that one Shri. S.S. Dhivare, Driver was involved in an accident on Navapur Pune route on 26.04.2014 and was held responsible for causing the accident. After holding enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to Shri Dhiavare for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. It was alleged that on 20.09.2014 when Shri. Dhivare presented in service for accidental training in the Divisional Office, Dhule, the respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- by promising cancellation of dismissal notice. It was further alleged that out of demanded amount of illegal gratification, the respondent directed payment of Rs.10,000/- to be made to a private person Shri Sajay Suryakant Kayasth, a bakery owner at Dhule Bus Station. It was further alleged that as per the directions of the complainant, Shri Dhivare paid amount of Rs.10,000/- to Shri Kayasth on 27.10.2014 when the Aanti Corruption Bureau caught him red handed. The respondent was thereafter taken into custody. Petitioner was therefore charged of misconduct of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification through the private person Shri Kayasth.
4. The domestic enquiry was conducted by petitioner/Corporation, which failed to examine Shri. Dhivre as witness. Instead, only the officer who recorded statements and submitted a report was examined as a witness. The respondent participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the charge against petitioner was proved, and therefore, show cause notice with conclusions dated 01.12.2015 was served on the respondent by petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Accordingly, final show cause notice for dismissal was served on the respondent on 28.12.2015. After receipt of the representation dated 06.01.2016 from the respondent, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 20.01.2016 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent with the further direction that the period of suspension from 03.11.2014 to 30.01.2015 shall be debited from the leave due.
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 01/2016 before the Labour Court, Dhule by order dated 13.01.2016, Labour Court rejected application for stay of dismissal order. The respondent challenged the order rejecting stay by filing revision before Industrial Court, Dhule which was pleased to reject the revision petition by order dated 22.08.2016.
6. The Labour Court heard the respondent's complaint on two preliminary issues of enquiry being conducted in a fair and proper manner and perversity in finding of Enquiry Officer. The Labour court delivered Award-I on 30.04.2018 holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by petitioners was not fair, legal or proper. It was further held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
7. In view of the Award-I being de
In a situation where the domestic enquiry is found to be vitiated, only the evidence adduced before the labour court should be considered to establish the charges. The evidence from the domestic enqu....
(1) Disciplinary Enquiry – Rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry – Acquittal of accused in a criminal case does not debar emplo....
Disciplinary proceedings' standards differ from criminal trials; acquittal does not bar disciplinary action if evidence supports charges.
Departmental misconduct charges require proof via witness examination on preponderance of probability; unproved complaint/arrest documents insufficient, warranting quashing of dismissal, with crimina....
A disciplinary enquiry must be based on evidence; mere allegations or FIR production without witness examination cannot substantiate a finding of guilt.
Disciplinary proceedings for corruption may stand despite the non-examination of the complainant if there is sufficient corroborative evidence consistent with the misconduct charged.
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
