Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 435
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Assam Rastrabhasa Prasar Samity (Societies Registration Act Having Its Office At Rupnagar, Guwahati-32 In The District Of Kamrup, Assam (Metro) Represented By Its Mantri (General Secretary) - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 4839 of 2018
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. L P Sharma, Mr. S. Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Mr. F. Khan, Ms. U. Das, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges of insubordination and unbecoming conduct, and the authority's discretion in imposing penalties based on the findings.
Headnote:
Insubordination - Employment Dispute - ARPS Act, 2005, Section 21(1) - The court discussed the charges against the respondent No.3 under the ARPS Act, 2005, Section 21(1) and found that charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not proved, but charge No. 4 was partly proved. The court set aside the finding of the learned Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Management for a fresh decision on the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the respondent No.3.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No.3, an employee, was compulsorily retired from service by the Management based on charges of insubordination and unbecoming conduct. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Industrial Tribunal held that charge Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were not proved, directing the Management to reinstate the respondent and pay full back wages. The Management filed a writ petition challenging the award.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not proved, but charge No. 4 was partly proved against the respondent No.3. The court set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the Management for a fresh decision on the penalty.
Issues: The issues revolved around the charges of insubordination and unbecoming conduct against the respondent No.3, and the correctness of the Industrial Tribunal's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that charge Nos. 1 and 2 were not proved, but charge No. 4 was partly proved against the respondent No.3, leading to the decision to remand the matter back to the Management for a fresh decision on the penalty.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the Management for a fresh decision on the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the respondent No.3.
Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the writ petitioner (Management). Also heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
2. At the outset, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 died during the pendency of this case and that the legal heirs of the respondent No.2 have accepted the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 issued by the Management against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioner’s counsel also submits that during the proceedings of this case, the respondent No.4 had also accepted the impugned order dated 04.03.2009 issued by the Management, by which the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 have been compulsorily retired from service.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.3 is a workman, who was placed under suspension vide order dated 23.06.2005. Show cause notice dated 05.11.2005 was issued to the respondent No.3 asking him to submit his written statement of defence against the 7 charges that were framed against him. The show-cause-notice dated 05.11.2005 has listed out 8 charges. However, there is no charge number 3 in the show-cause-notice dated 05.11.2005. The 8 charges without charge No.3 are as follows-
“(1) That while you were working as LDA in the Assam Rastrabhasa Prasar Samity (in short 'Samity'), you were plated under suspension vide office order No.ARPS/Esstt/21/05/11/110-115 dated 23.6.2005 and Shri Suren Nath, a peon of the Samity, was asked to hand over the said suspension order to you through Peon Book and when Shri Nath went to deliver the said order, you refused to receive the said suspension order.
You are charged with insubordination, violation of office discipline and unbecoming of an employee of the Samity.
(2) That while you were placed under suspension, you refused to receive the aforesaid suspension order from Shri Jagadish Gogoi, peon of the samity, the said suspension order was sent through Registered post with A/D vide registered letter No. 2787 dated dated 24.6.2005 but the postal authority returned the said registered letter to the sender i.e. the Samity with an endorsement 'Refused.
You are charged with insubordination, violation of office discipline and unbecoming of an employee of the Samity.
(4) That while you were working as LDA, you on 7.10.2002 at about 12.00 noon, when the Executive committee meeting of the Samity was going on in the office chamber of Mantri, you along with others entered into the office chamber of Mantri and demanded to revoke the suspension order of Shri Bimal Kr Nath, Shri Sailen Sarma and Shri Dimbeswar Borah, failing which he along with others threatened the officers/members of the Executive committee to confine in the room and subsequently he along with others closed the gate and tried to attack the official of the Samity.
You are therefore charged with riotous behaviour, threatening to the superior officers, insubordination, threatening the Executives and officials of the Samity and unbecoming of an employee of the Samity.
(5) That while you were working as LDA in the Samity, you on 3.11.2003 at about 12.30 PM, you along with some other employees of the Samity misbehaved Smti Priyasakhi Devi, Mukhya Prasasanik Adhikary of the Samity in the office of the Commissioner, Education Department at the Assam Secretariat, Dispur.
You are therefore charged with misbehaving Smti. Priyasakhi Devi, an officer of the Samity, violation of office discipline, insubordination and unbecoming of an employee of the Samity.
(6) That while you were working as LDA in the Samity, you left the office on 3.11.2003 at about 11.30 AM without any authority or permission from the competent authority and you along with others misbehaved Smti Priyasakhi Devi Mukhya Prasasanik Adhikary of the Samity in the office of the Commissioner, Education Department at the Assam Secretariat, Dispur at about 12.30 PM to 1.00 PM.
You are therefore charged
