Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta, JJ.
S. Nizamuddin s/o Late Abdul Aziz - Appellant
Versus
M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 567 of 2016 With I.A. No. 1276 of 2018
Decided On : 26-06-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Alok Anand
For the Respondents: M/s G.M. Mishra
Headnote:
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Misconduct – Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original Petitioner, whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order, and thereafter, review application preferred by this appellant, being Civil Review, was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order – Hence, Original Petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. – It appears that misconduct is alleged to have been committed by this appellant – Held, On perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it appears that it has been submitted by the workman that the copy of the office order appointing Enquiry Officer was not served to him. – Thus, the competence of the Enquiry Officer was under challenge, but, never an issue was raised by this delinquent-appellant that report of the Enquiry Officer was never received by him. – It cannot be said that the same was based upon no evidence. – Report of the Enquiry Officer is based on the evidences on record. – The order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jamshedpur was never challenged by this appellant before any competent authority and any court. – Thus, Order has attained its finality. – It cannot be said that the same was based upon no evidence. Report of the Enquiry Officer is based on the evidences on record. – The order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Jamshedpur was never challenged by this appellant before any competent authority and any court. – Thus, Order has attained its finality. – Once the enquiry is held as a legal and a valid one, the only point which shall be addressed is the quantum of punishment. – Quantum of punishment inflicted upon the delinquent-appellant can be labelled as neither shockingly disproportionate nor unreasonably excessive. – Court see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge in deciding W.P.(L) vide order and Civil Review vide Order – There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. – Appeal Dismissed
D.N. Patel, J.
I.A. No. 1276 of 2018
1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 118 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard counsels for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.
3. In view of these facts, we, hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1276 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 567 of 2016
4. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Original Petitioner, whose writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, being W.P.(L) No. 6341 of 2006, vide order dated 4th August, 2010, and thereafter, review application preferred by this appellant, being Civil Review No. 32 of 2011, was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8th July, 2016. Hence, Original Petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
5. Having heard counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that misconduct is alleged to have been committed by this appellant on 16th November, 1992. The same reads as under as per Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal:
“On 16.11.1992 you were in ‘A’ shift (6 am to 2 pm) duty working as Driver in the Transport Section of Material Handling Services Department. It has emerged that you left the place of duty around 11.00 am and not found at the place of your duty till the end of your shifts (i.e. 2.00 pm).
It has also emerged that you took Sri Bihari lall an ex-employee (Ex.T.No. 151053) of W.G.S. Department and went to the house of Sri S.M. Haider Incharge of C.F. Yard, AKS Dept. at 7, Arpat Road, Sakchi assuring him that you would manage Sri S.M. Haider to sign on a challan for having delivered Ferro Alloy to the Steel Company (Ferro Alloys Yard of MHS Dept.) by M/s. V.B.C. Alloys Ltd., the entire shipment of Ferro Alloys.
The above acts on your part amounts to leaving your place of work without permission and attempted fraud and dishonesty in connection with the Company’s Business.”
6. In pursuance of this chargesheet, dated 18th February, 1993, Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer gave his report and the charges levelled against this appellant was found to be proved.
7. Second show cause Notice, dated 28th December, 1993 (Annexure 9 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), was also replied to by this appellant and the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 5th January, 1994 (Annexure 1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), whereby, this appellant has been discharged from the services of respondent Steel Company.
8. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that a copy of the enquiry report was not given to him. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur while deciding Reference No. 25 of 1995. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by this appellant.
9. It is also submitted by counsel appearing for the appellant that reply was given to the second Show Cause Notice on 5th January, 1994 and the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order on 5th January, 1994, whereby the appellant was discharged from the services of the respondents and hence also, the said order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.
None of these contentions are accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that:
(a) The second Show Cause Notice was given on 28th of December, 1993. Reply was to be given within 48 hours. If the delinquent has not given reply within stipulated time, there is no need for the Disciplinary Authority to wait before passing the final order in the Departmental Proceedi
