Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
H.H. Dave and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Madhya Gujarat Vij Vitaram Company Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 2434 of 1998
Decided On : 23-06-2016
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Inquiry - Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Procedure - [BREACH OF TRUST, DISHONESTY, DISLOYALTY, FALSE STATEMENT] - [Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Procedure] - The court discussed the violation of natural justice in the context of disciplinary inquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing to ensure no failure of justice. The non-speaking orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Deputy Engineer, was served with a departmental charge sheet for acts of misconduct including breach of trust, dishonesty, disloyalty, and making false statements. An Inquiry Officer found the charges to be established, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding two increments. The petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority resulted in a modification of the punishment. The petitioner then filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging serious prejudice due to the failure to supply relevant documents and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was conducted in a manner that violated the principles of natural justice, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The non-speaking orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, failure to supply relevant documents, serious prejudice to the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing and the principles of natural justice in the context of disciplinary inquiries. It highlighted that the violation of procedural provisions should be examined from the standpoint of prejudice, and orders passed in violation of such provisions can be set aside if such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities concerned to look into the consequential effect of the quashing of the orders and act accordingly.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a former Deputy Engineer serving with the Erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction and/or order for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.10.1997, passed by the Member (Tech.), whereby order of respondent No. 2 of dated 26.3.1992, being No. DGM (P)/VI/DA/285/HHD/186 was confirmed.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 26.3.1992 during pendency and final disposal of this petition.
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to be direct the respondents not to consider the order of the appellate authority dated 26.3.1992 for extending any benefit to the petitioner, during the pendency and final disposal of this petition.
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed just, fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
(E) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition."
2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:
2.1 The petitioner, while serving as a Deputy Engineer, was served with a departmental charge sheet dated 9.11.1987 with the following charges;
"You, Shri H.H. Dave, Junior Engineer, Modasa Town Sub-Division now promoted as Deputy Engineer and posted at Mapur O&M Sub-Division, are hereby charged for following acts of misconduct specified at Sr. No. 9, 10, 24 & 37 of schedule "A" of the employees' conduct, Discipline and Appeal procedure committed by you.
Sr. No. 09: Breach of trust, dishonestly in connection with the affairs of the Board.
Sr. No. 19: Instances of disloyalty to board or the superior under whom the employee is working.
Sr. No. 25: Habitual breach of any orders of circulars.
Sr. No. 37: Making a false statement or making a false complaints.
It has been noticed that Shri Khodaji Udaji Khant of Village : Kolikhad under Modasa (T) Sub Division has demanded agricultural connection of 5 HP Load on his well situated in land survey No. 172 vide his application registered in office on 5/11/1984. The survey was carried out by you.
Though the distance from nearest pole to well (metering point) was about 45 Mts, the connection was falling under "B" category, you have prepared the proposal under "A" category, considering the distance as 20 meters. You were aware of the facts that under "B" category the firm quotations for the applications registered upto June-83 are issued and hence it is obvious that the connection in question under this category will be delayed. Therefore to extend a favour to the consumer for early getting of connection, the proposal was prepared under "A" category & thus party's connection was released on 20/11/84. The party had applied on 5/11/84 and taken the connection on 20/11/84 i.e. within 15 days was due to wrong classification of category. Subsequently on detailed enquiry by Dy. Engr. (T) Modasa had disconnected the supply on 27/12/84.
Your Such acts shows gross negligency, spoiling reputation of the board, inconvenience to the consumer and this is a breach of trust for work allotted to you and have show dishonesty and disloyalty to the board."
2.2 An Inquiry Officer was appointed, and at the end of the inquiry, he filed his report stating that the charges were held to be established.
2.3 The Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Chief Engineer, by an order dated 3rd January, 1992, imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The order reads as under;
"I have carefully gone through the papers of the inquiry and reply dated : 11-11-1991 to the show cause notice given by Shri H.H. Dave, Deputy Engineer. I concur with the findings of the enquiry officer and I hold that the charges levelled against Shri H.H. Dave vide charge sheet at (1) above have been proved.
I, therefore, pass the following orders:
"Ensuing t
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
