IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ravi Malimath, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Narender Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Vice President (works), M/s Himachal Exicom Communications Ltd - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 675 of 2019
Decided On : 05-08-2021
Punishment - Termination of Services - State of Karnataka and another versus N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423, Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308, Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759, M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Operator, had his services terminated by the respondent-Company after being issued a charge sheet and undergoing an inquiry for physical assault and outrage of modesty. The petitioner challenged the award of termination through a writ petition, alleging unfair inquiry and disproportionate penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice, and the punishment of termination was proportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner.
Issues: Fairness of the inquiry, proportionality of the punishment
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it would not act as an appellate authority for re-appreciating evidence in a departmental inquiry, and interference with the decision of the disciplinary authority is permitted only if the proceedings were in violation of prescribed procedure or principles of natural justice. The court also highlighted the violation of fundamental rights in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace and the importance of maintaining discipline in an organization.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the award of termination of services.
JUDGMENT
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Petitioner was a Senior Operator in the respondentCompany. After issuing charge sheet, holding inquiry and concluding the disciplinary proceedings, his services were terminated by the respondent on 12.08.2004. Whether punishment of termination of petitioner's services was commensurate with the charges levelled against him was the reference sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. The reference was answered against the petitioner on 07.10.2015. Three years later, he invoked jurisdiction of this Court by way of instant writ petition challenging the award.
2. The petitioner was working as Senior Operator with the respondent-Company. On 08.05.2004, respondent issued charge sheet to the petitioner. The charges levelled against him in the charge sheet were on the basis of complaints of physical assault made by Hardev Thakur and of outrage of modesty, made by Sushma Sharma co-workers of the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the charge sheet. Inquiry was conducted against him. The inquiry officer held that charges were proved against the petitioner. After conclusion of the inquiry, show cause notice alongwith inquiry report was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2004. After considering the relevant documents, petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 12.08.2004.
The petitioner's case before the learned Labour Court was that the inquiry was not conducted fairly. Principles of natural justice were not complied with. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was not commensurate to the charges levelled against him. The respondent pleaded that petitioner's services were terminated on the basis of a proper inquiry held in accordance with law and in a fair manner.
After appreciating the respective contentions, learned Labour Court held that there was overwhelming evidence to conclude that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. It was also held that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was commensurate to the charges levelled against him. The award passed by the learned Labour Court has been challenged in this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand taken by the petitioner before the learned Labour Court. Learned counsel submitted that inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and that penalty was not proportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Labour Court.
4.
4(i) Conduct of inquiry
It is settled legal position that while exercising the power of judicial review, the Court will not act as an appellate Court for re-appreciating the evidence led in the departmental inquiry. The findings of fact recorded in the departmental inquiry are not to be interfered with except when the same were based on no evidence or are absolutely perverse.
Considering plethora of previous judgments on the issue, Hon'ble Apex Court in , titled State of Karnataka and another versus N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 after noticing the facts of the case wherein Disciplinary Authority agreed with inquiry officer's findings about delinquent police official being guilty of misconduct and imposed penalty of dismissal, which was affirmed in appeal, observed that the Tribunal and the High Court could not have interfered with findings of facts recorded by re-appreciating the evidence as if they were the Appellate Authority. It was also observed that power of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and is not akin to the power of Appellate Authority. Power of Judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eyes of law. The Court in its power of Judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings. It is only where the conclusion reached by disc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.