Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sudhanshu Dhulia, Soumitra Saikia, JJ.
Oil India Limited, At Duliajan -Appellant
Versus
Protim Patni Dey, Son of Sri Pronoy Patni Dey – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.153 of 2021
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Oil India Limited Teachers CDA Rules, 2017 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Employment and Service matter - Appointed as a Graduate Teacher - Termination order - Probation – Seeking reinstatement in service – Applicability of Act, 1947 - Respondent was appointed as a Graduate Teacher for a period of 6 (six) months in the Oil India H.S School, Oil India Limited - On basis of a complaint submitted by parents of a girl student of class-IX, petitioner was issued a show cause notice on charge of sexually harassing girl student - Petitioner submitted his reply to show cause notice denying charges levelled against him - Whether disciplinary proceedings against an employee can be initiated by an authority lower than the appointing authority but higher than delinquent employee.
Finding of the court :
There is no dispute at the bar that the respondent being a teacher is not a workman under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. As a consequence, the Modified Standing Orders of Oil India will not have a strict application in respect of the petitioner who is not a workman as defined under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. However, the spirit of the Standing Orders can always be relied upon as a guiding principle in matters pertaining to departmental enquiries/disciplinary proceedings as has been initiated against the respondent. There is also no dispute at the bar that although the Principal of Oil India Limited Higher Secondary School, under which the respondent was employed, is the controlling authority although not the appointing authority of the respondent. The appointing authority of the respondent was the Deputy General Manager (Industrial Relations) which post is now is stated to be re-designated as Deputy General Manager (Employees Relations)-The issue raised in this appeal, in our opinion is no longer res-integra - There is no quarrel that the Principal of the school, although not the appointing authority is certainly the controlling authority in so far as the respondent is concerned and therefore a superior authority to the respondent/petitioner, the findings of the learned Single Judge that Enquiry initiated by the Principal of the school, not being the appointing authority cannot be sustained - Findings of learned Single Judge being contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court will have to be interfered with and set aside.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Soumitra Saikia, J.
This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7096/2017, whereby the termination order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Employees Relations, Oil India Limited, Duliajan) as well as order dated 13.10.2017 issued by the Resident Chief Executive, Oil India Limited to the respondent/writ petitioner was held to be not sustainable and set aside and the writ petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service.
2. The respondent was appointed as a Graduate Teacher for a period of 6 (six) months with effect from 13.07.2011 in the Oil India H.S School, Oil India Limited, Duliajan. On the basis of a complaint submitted by the parents of a girl student of class-IX on 20.09.2011, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 23.09.2011 on the charge of sexually harassing the girl student. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.09.2011 to the show cause notice denying the charges levelled against him. The said show cause notice, however, was thereafter withdrawn and the enquiry proceedings sought to be initiated were also cancelled by order dated 19.10.2021. On the same day a second show cause notice dated 19.10.2011 was again issued to the petitioner/respondent reiterating the charges that the petitioner had sexually harassed a minor girl child of class-IX by making unwelcome remarks and gestures intending to insult the modesty of the girl student. It was further alleged that he had been coercing and forcing the girl student to agree to his illicit desires and which had caused mental trauma and agony to the girl student. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24.10.2011 denying the charges. Thereafter, by Notice dated 05.11.2011, enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The said enquiry was completed and in his Enquiry Report dated 25.04.2012, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges could not be established against the petitioner.
3. The Principal of the school forwarded the Enquiry Report dated 25.04.2012 to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his representation requesting the Principal to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer as per the Enquiry Report dated 25.04.2012. The principal of the school, however, refused to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 16.08.2012 the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Labour Commissioner Central at Dibrugarh. A conciliation proceeding was attempted which however failed prompting the petitioner to approached this Court for filing a writ petition being WP (C) No. 3980/2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.02.2017 holding that although a school was an establishment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioner who was a school teacher was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court further held that since no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to make any representation against the reasons allegedly made, by the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the findings in the Enquiry Report, the order of dismissal dated 16.08.2012, was set aside and the appellant/Oil India Limited was given liberty to continue the departmental proceedings from the stage of furnishing to the petitioner, the reasons of disciplinary authority disagreeing with the Enquiry Report and to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to make a representations against those reasons.
4. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 3980/2015 the petitioner was furnished the reasons by the Principal of Oil India Higher Secondary School, Duliajan for disagreeing with the findings in the Enquiry Report and the petitioner was also afforded an opportunity to represent against the said reasons. The petitioner accordingly submitted his representation and thereafter vide order dated 17.05.2017 issued by the Deput
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
