The lack of independent evidence in a departmental inquiry based on a criminal charge, leading to the employee's acquittal, necessitates quashing the disciplinary action taken against them.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. With the consent of the parties this matter is heard finally.

3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No.28 of 2022, whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner challenging the order of punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments with future effect came to be affirmed.

4. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was serving with the respondent Corporation on the post of Conductor. He was served with a chargesheet in respect of a criminal case registered under the Prohibition Act on 31.03.2012. The Corporation initiated a departmental inquiry on the basis of the said criminal complaint, and during the inquiry, except for the criminal complaint, no other material was placed for consideration. The inquiry culminated in a dismissal order dated 15.10.2019. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred a first departmental appeal, wherein the order of dismissal was set aside and substituted with the punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments with future effect, vide order dated 22.07.2020. The petitioner thereafter moved a second departmental appeal, which came to be rejected on 21.08.2021. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, which culminated in Reference (IT) No.28 of 2022. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the Reference, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Munshaw for the respondent.

6. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the S.T.Corporation initiated the departmental inquiry solely on the basis of a criminal complaint, which ultimately resulted in an acquittal. During the departmental inquiry, no material evidence was produced, nor were any witnesses examined. The inquiry was concluded only on the basis of the statement of the reporter, who did not have any personal knowledge of the incident as he was not present at the relevant time. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod further submits that, as per the evidence of the reporter, the inquiry proceeded solely on the basis of the chargesheet filed in the criminal case, despite the fact that, on the date of the alleged incident i.e., 22.02.2019, the petitioner was on leave. Learned advocate Ms.Rathod submits that the petitioner was victimized as he was an active member of the S.T. Workers’ Union, which is opposed to the S.T. Karmachari Mandal, and that due to his Union activities, the chargesheet was issued without any evidence.

6.1. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that instead of conducting an independent inquiry, the departmental proceedings were concluded solely on the basis of the criminal case. Learned advocate further submits that the police complaint was lodged as a pressure tactic at the instance of the opposing union leader, and in the absence of any medical evidence or breath analyzer report, the criminal court has acquitted the petitioner.

6.2. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the acquittal constitutes a significant basis for the petitioner’s claim whil