Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 237
High Court Of Calcutta
D. P. Kundu
MOHD.MIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 1605 (W) Of 1990
Decided On : 05/10/2000
Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can vitiate the proceedings and the court must consider all relevant factors and balance them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration to allow the proceedings to terminate. The participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in a departmental proceeding evidences a considerable bias and renders the enquiry and the entire proceedings inoperative and without jurisdiction.
Headnote:
DISMISSAL OF WORKMAN - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - CHARGE-SHEET - DELAY IN CONDUCTING ENQUIRY - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - JURISDICTION OF OFFICER TO ISSUE CHARGE-SHEET - EXPLANATION BY WORKMAN - ESI DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE - REASONABLE CONCLUSION OF CONDUCT - PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT - APPLICATION OF MIND BY TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a workman, challenged the award passed by the Labour Court upholding his dismissal from service. The charges against the petitioner included disobedience and disorderly behavior during working hours, refusal to operate a machine, and assaulting a fellow worker. The petitioner claimed that he was unable to operate the machine due to a physical disability and that the delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry was prejudicial to him. He also argued that the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in the enquiry violated principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay of one year in conducting the disciplinary enquiry was unexplained and had caused prejudice to the petitioner, vitiating the disciplinary proceeding. It also held that the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in the enquiry rendered the enquiry and the entire proceedings inoperative and without jurisdiction. The court set aside and quashed the award passed by the Tribunal, the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner, and the entire disciplinary proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry was prejudicial to the petitioner? 2. Whether the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in the enquiry violated principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner was proportionate to the misconduct alleged?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay of one year in conducting the disciplinary enquiry was unexplained and had caused prejudice to the petitioner, vitiating the disciplinary proceeding. It relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakrishnan, which held that unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can vitiate the proceedings and that the court must consider all relevant factors and balance them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration to allow the proceedings to terminate. 2. The court held that the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in the enquiry rendered the enquiry and the entire proceedings inoperative and without jurisdiction. It relied on the decision of a single Bench of this High Court in Sarajit Coomer Mazumder v. The Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Ors., which held that the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in a departmental proceeding evidences a considerable bias and renders the enquiry and the entire proceedings inoperative and without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the award passed by the Tribunal, the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner, and the entire disciplinary proceeding. However, there was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, a workman, in this writ proceeding has challenged the award passed by the 1st Labour Court, West Bengal on October 4, 1989 in case No. VIII-C-9/86. By an order dated July 22, 1999. I requested Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh, advocate to act as Amicus Curiae without any remuneration and Mr. Ghosh very kindly agreed to act as Amicus Curiae. At the time of final hearing of the matter the learned advocate for the workman did not appear but Mr. Ghosh, advocate assisted the Court by arguing the case. None appeared to argue the case on behalf of the respondents.
( 2 ) THE petitioner while working as a workman in National Jute Manufactures Corporation (A Government of India Undertaking) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in Winding Department, by a charge-sheet dated April 17, 1998 the following charges were levelled against the petitioner:"you are hereby charged with disobedience and disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment in that on April 15, 1982 at 6 A. M. Shri P. K. Bakshi (Sn. Asst.) your superior officer instructed you to operate the Cop Winding M/c. No. 10 but inspite of his instructions you did not deliberately comply and refused to obey the said order. Moreover when Shri P. K. Bakshi wanted to know the reasons for which you did not operate the M/c No. 10, you gave arrogant and insolent reply in a very rough manner in presence of some other workmen and you said that "i will not operate the M/c as per your order. I will operate the M/c according to my own choice and if you do not allow me to operate the M/c as per my choice, I will assault you in the department". Again at 2 P. M. when you resumed your duty, you were instructed to operate the said M/c No. 10 by your superior Shri Tapan Das (Assistant) but you repeated your same conduct of- denying to comply with the reasonable instructions. Further, when under instruction of Shri P. K. Bakshi and Tapan Das Shri Kurban MK/2785 counselled you to comply with the said instructions, you abused the said Shri Kurban and also assaulted him inside the department in presence of other workers. You are charged with the above offence. which is to be treated as misconduct under Rule 14 (c) (i) and (viii) of the Standing Orders. You are hereby required to explain the said circumstances alleged against you within 48 hours. "it appeals that the charge-sheet was issued by the Senior Assistant of the Corporation. It further appears that on April 20, 1982 the workman in his reply to the charge-sheet stated as follows:"most respectfully and humbly I beg to draw your kind attention to the following facts for your kind and favourable consideration: on August 15, 1981 I was admitted in the N. R. S. Medical College\hospital (Emergency Room), Calcutta due to stab injuries and remained there fifteen days for treatment. Again I was admitted to S. S. K. M. Hospital for further proper treatment. I possess all the documents in connection with my treatment. Since the date of injury and still now I am feeling too much weak for which I am really unable to operate the heavy machines. On April 15, 1982 when Shri P. K. Bakshi advised me to operate the machine No. 10, I very politely requested him that due to my weakness I am unable to operate the same. I am always bound to carry out the order of my superior officer, and I cannot refuse to perform my duty. I explained politely before the officer to consider my present physical condition. I hope you will kindly realise my position as stated above. Further I hope and pray that your honour would be pleased to withdraw suspension and for this act of your kindness I shall remain ever grateful to you. "
( 3 ) BY a letter dated July 6, 1983 the workman was dismissed from service. The relevant portion of the order of dismissal reads as follows:"further to the charge-sheet and letter of suspension issued to you on April 17, 1982, an enquiry has been instituted about the charges levelled against you on April 25,
