IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to principles of natural justice is paramount in disciplinary proceedings, and any procedural irregularities, such as improper delegation of authority and failure to frame specific charges, can invalidate the proceedings.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. By this petition, Petitioner challenges judgment and order dtd. 27/8/2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing Appeal (IC) No. 100/2006 filed by Petitioner challenging the judgment and Order dtd. 12/1/2006 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai rejecting his Application (BIR/MISC.) No.58/2003. That Application was filed by Petitioner under the provisions of Ss. 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act) seeking setting aside of order of dismissal from service.

2. Facts of the case are that Petitioner was appointed as a Bus Driver in Respondent-Undertaking in the year 1993 and was posted at Colaba Bus Depot. While driving bus No. 6733 on route 132/6 on 9/2/2003, an accident occurred at 19.50 hrs at Kalaghoda, Mumbai where a pedestrian was knocked down by front portion of the bus. Upon being admitted in the hospital, the pedestrian was declared dead.

3. An offence was registered against the Petitioner at Colaba Police Station vide C.R. No.35/2003 under Ss. 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the RespondentUndertaking initiated disciplinary proceedings against him by issuing Memorandum of Chargesheet dtd. 24/2/2003 alleging misconduct under Standing Order 20(j) of "habitual or gross neglect of work or habitual or gross negligence". The Chargesheet was issued by Assistant Traffic Superintendent (Colaba). Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dtd. 25/2/2003.

4. The disciplinary enquiry was conducted by Senior Traffic Officer (Colaba) in his capacity as Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry, various witnesses were examined. It appears that the enquiry was conducted upto 21/3/2003. It is not known whether the Enquiry Officer prepared any report or recorded his finding on the charge alleged against the Petitioner. It is also not known whether Petitioner's representation was called on any such report. It appears that, instead of Assistant Traffic Superintendent (Colaba) passing punishment order, the Enquiry Officer passed order dtd. 28/3/2003 and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the Petitioner.

5. Petitioner preferred Appeal against the penalty order which came to be rejected by Assistant Traffic Superintendent (Colaba) on 21/4/2003. Petitioner thereafter preferred Second Appeal before the Traffic Manager (South) on 21/4/2003. However, Petitioner has placed on record merely the proceedings of the Second Appeal of 23/5/2003 and the final decision taken by the Traffic Manager (South) is not placed on record. The General Secretary, Best Workers Union filed Application (BIR/MISC) No. 58/2003 before the Labour Court, Mumbai under Ss. 78 and 79 of the BIR Act challenging the order of dismissal. In the meantime, Petitioner came to be acquitted in criminal prosecution by the Metropolitan Magistrate by judgment and order dtd. 19/8/2005.

6. The Labour Court rejected Petitioner's application by its judgment and order dtd. 12/1/2006. Petitioner challenged decision of the Labour Court before the Industrial Court by filing Appeal No. 100/2006, which came to be rejected on 27/8/2007. Aggrieved by the decision of the industrial Court, Petitioner has filed the present petition. The petition was admitted by this Court by its order dtd. 3/8/2010.

7. Mr. Shermale, the learned counsel for Petitioner would submit that the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the complaint despite absence of any cogent evidence on record in support of the charge. He would submit that no evidence was led in the enquiry by the Respondent-Undertaking to indicate any rash driving on the part of Petitioner. That Petitioner has been acquitted in respect of the same charge in the criminal prosecution and therefore the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be sustained. That the entire enquiry is held in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry officer himself conducted the enquiry and also imposed punishment on Petitioner. That Enquiry officer should not have acted as a disciplinar