Back
High Court Of Delhi
AMAR NATH BHATIA - Appellant
Versus
TRADE FAIR AUTHORITY OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1739 of 1981
Decided On : 07/29/1982
TRADE FAIR AUTHORITY OF INDIA - EMPLOYEES (CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES - VALIDITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - ARTICLE 19(1)(C) - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - REINSTATEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an officer in the Trade Fair Authority of India (TFAI), was charged with misconduct for addressing a meeting of employees without permission and for making inflammatory speeches. An inquiry was held, and the petitioner was found guilty of addressing the meeting but not of the other charges. The disciplinary authority, however, found the petitioner guilty of all charges and terminated his service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court found that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case. The court also held that the petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution had not been violated.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case? 4. Whether the petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution had been violated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the termination of the petitioner's service was illegal and violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because: a. The inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. b. The disciplinary authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case. c. The petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution had not been violated. 2. The court held that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice because: a. The petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the chargesheet and a list of witnesses. b. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to file a written statement or to cross-examine witnesses. c. The disciplinary authority did not record its findings on each of the charges. 3. The court held that the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind to the facts of the case because: a. The disciplinary authority did not consider the evidence led by the petitioner. b. The disciplinary authority did not state any reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer. 4. The court held that the petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution had not been violated because: a. The petitioner's speech was not inflammatory or subversive. b. The petitioner was addressing a meeting of employees, not the general public.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority terminating the petitioner's services. The court also directed the TFAI to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order of the removal of the petitioner from service passed on 7-4-1981 and the order dated 6-6-1981 rejecting his appeal.
( 2 ) FROM 1956 to 1977 the petitioner was working in the office of the Accountant General, Commerce, Works and Miscellaneous, Government of India. On 1st March, 1977 he joined the Trade Fair Authority of India (REFERRED TO in the judgment as an Authority) as an S. A. S. Accountant. On 14-7-1978 he was permanently absorbed in the service of the Authority "in public interest". When he was in the Central Government service he was the President of the Staff Association in the Accountant General s office. As an officer in the Authority he was elected as a General Secretary of the Officers Association. At the relevant time he was working as a General Secretary of the said Association. On 17-2-1981 a departmental enquiry was started against him under Rules 27 and 28 under the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It may be stated that the said rules are not the statutory rules as the Trade Fair Authority of India is not a statutory Corporation but a Company registered under the Companies Act as a Government company. The Article of charge supplied to the petitioner reads :
"that a demonstration was held on the 3rd February, 1981 by some of the Employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India in Office premises in which inflammatory speeches were made and defamatory slogans were shouted. Chairman and some other Officers of the TFAI were criticised. Shri A. N. Bhatia was one of the speakers. A news item appeared to this effect in the Patriot dated the 4th February, 1981. Shri A. N. Bhatia s action comes under the definition of misconduct as defined in the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This relates to Rule 5 (6) regarding wilful insubordination and Rules 5 (21) regarding meetings, demonstrations, slogans shouting etc. within the premises of the Authority without permission of the competent Authority i. e. Chairman and Rule 5 (20) commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. He, being an Officer of the Authority has also acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Authority. Shri A. N. Bhatia has, therefore, violated Rule 5 (6), 5 (5), 5 (20) and 5 (21) of TFAl Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. "the said charge-sheet was amended later on to clarify that the demonstration was held on 5-2-1981 (and not on 3-2-81) and the report in Patriot appeared on 6-2-81 (and not on 4-2-81 ). On 25-2-81 the petitioner called upon the Managing Director of the Trade Fair Authority of India to furnish a copy of the rules under which he was charged and requested for ten days time after the supply of the copy for furnishing his explanation. He further stated that the specific orders which are deemed to have been violated by him within the meaning of the said rules should be furnished to him. He then stated that he did not organise any meeting or demonstration and did not indulge in slogan shouting in any manner nor did he do anything which can be construed to be subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. The Authority appointed one Shri S. C. Verma, as an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer directed the petitioner to be present on 17th March, 1981, for conducting the enquiry. It is an admitted fact that the copy of the said ^ rules was not furnished to the petitioner. It may be noticed that being nonstatutory rules there is no presumption of the knowledge of the rules attaching to petitioner. It is also admitted that neither the documents relied upon nor the list of witnesses was furnished to the petitioner as required by Rule 27.
( 3 ) ON 17-3-1981 the petitioner presented himself before the Inquiry Officer and requested for some time to file a written statement in defence. He was not permitted to do so but instead his oral statement was
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
