Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, JJ.
Dwarka Prasad - Appellant
Versus
The General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1313 of 2012 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10378 of 2008
Decided On : 16-07-2019
For the Appellant : Yunus Khan.
For the Respondents: O.P. Sheoran.
An inquiry against an employee must be fair and impartial, and the employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2K - DISCRIMINATION - UNFAIR INQUIRY - AWARD SET ASIDE - APPEAL ALLOWED:
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a booking conductor with the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, was punished with stoppage of one grade increment for missing ticket books. He challenged the punishment, alleging that the inquiry was unfair and discriminatory as his co-employee, who was also involved in the incident, was exonerated. The Labour Court set aside the punishment, but the High Court upheld the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was indeed unfair and discriminatory, as the appellant and his co-employee were facing the same charges and working at the same window, but separate inquiries were conducted against them. The court also found that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, as his application for representation through a departmental representative was rejected.
Issues: 1. Whether the inquiry was unfair and discriminatory? 2. Whether the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry was unfair and discriminatory, as the appellant and his co-employee were facing the same charges and working at the same window, but separate inquiries were conducted against them. The court also found that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself, as his application for representation through a departmental representative was rejected.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order. The court directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant with full back wages and benefits.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-workman against the impugned judgment dated 27.8.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by him has been dismissed and the impugned award of the learned Labour Court dated 5.3.2008 has been upheld.
2. Facts of the case are that the appellant-workman was working with the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation since 06.02.1980 on the post of Booking Conductor. A show cause notice was issued to him on 28.01.1989 by the respondent Corporation for missing of ticket books containing ticket of denomination of more than Rs. 15, total amounting to Rs. 11,200/- from booking office of Makrana on 05.03.1988 where appellant was posted at the time of occurrence. The appellant-workman filed reply to the show cause notice dated 28.01.1989. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the appellant-workman on 16.11.1999 for his involvement in missing of aforesaid ticket books amounting to Rs. 11,200/- from RSRTC Booking Office, Makrana i.e. his place of posting. The appellant-workman filed reply to the charge sheet dated 16.11.1991 stating that he had handed over the charge to Naval Kishore Dadhich after completing his shift on 5.3.1988 and also got his signatures on schedule 22 at Serial No. 516051. Thereafter during duty time of Shri Naval Kishore Dadhich, aforesaid ticket books were found missing from booking office. Naval Kishore Dadhich lodged an FIR and also sent a report to General Manager, RSRTC, Ajmer on 06.03.1988 in which nowhere involvement of the appellant-workman was mentioned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after serving the chargesheet to the appellant-workman as well as to Naval Kishore Dadhich for the occurrence dated 05.03.1988, an inquiry officer was appointed in the matter in a very illegal and unfair manner as for one offence two inquiry officers were appointed separately one for appellant-workman and another for Naval Kishore Dadhich and this unfair act was done only to give undue benefit to Naval Kishore Dadhich, who happens to be the younger brother of the Mahaveer Prasad Dadhich, the then Chief Manager of RSRTC, Ajmer.
4. Learned counsel submitted that contrary to the first inquiry, Shri K.N. Gupta submitted his inquiry report and found the appellant-workman as well as to Shri Naval Kishore Dadhich responsible for incident dated 05.03.1988. It is contended that the enquiry officer did not provide necessary documents for his defence to the appellant-workman even though he applied for documents under Right to Information Act. The inquiry officer also has not granted adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant-workman and in a mala fide manner, application of the appellant-workman for his representation through departmental representative Shri Suresh Kumar was rejected and appellant was not permitted for engaging departmental representative for his defence in the matter.
5. It is contended that on the basis of illegal unfair inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer Shri K.N. Gupta and only to save Naval Kishore Dadhich, appellant was shown involved in the matter falsely and was punished on the basis of inquiry report with stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 28.04.1995. The appellant workman filed an appeal raising all the grounds and defence placed before inquiry officer and disciplinary authority but departmental appeal of the appellant workman was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.1996 in an arbitrary manner.
6. Learned counsel submits that appellant-workman submitted application before the Conciliation Officer through Deputy Chief Regional, Rajasthan State Road Transport Majdoor Sangh, Ajmer under Industrial Disputes Act, where matter was not compromised and conciliation proceedings failed. The conciliation officer referred the matter to the State Government for further proceedings and the State Government referred the matter to t
