SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 1068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Brijesh Kumar and Maithli Sharan, JJ.
INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
DEVI SHANKAR KUMAR SHUKLA - Respondents
S. A. 293 Of 1995
Decided On : 09/23/1996

Advocates Appeared:
KRISHNA CHANDRA, R.P.Mehrotra

Under Standing Order 16 (2) (b), an outsider cannot be appointed as an Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry in an industrial dispute.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - APPOINTMENT OF ENQUIRY OFFICER - STANDING ORDER 16 (2) (B) - OUTSIDER CANNOT BE APPOINTED AS ENQUIRY OFFICER.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an employee of the appellant-establishment, was charged with misconduct. An Advocate was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry into the charges against the respondent. The respondent challenged the punishment awarded to him on the basis of the enquiry report, arguing that an outsider could not be appointed as an Enquiry Officer in view of Standing Order 16 (2) (Kha).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer was not permissible under Standing Order 16 (2) (b), which restricted the field of eligibility for appointment as Enquiry Officer to officers of the establishment's departments.

Issues: Whether an outsider could be appointed as an Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry in an industrial dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Standing Order 16 (2) (b) to mean that an Enquiry Officer or an Enquiry Committee could only be appointed from among the officers of the establishment's departments, excluding the Security Department. The court reasoned that the Standing Order's use of the phrase "other than Security Department" applied to both Enquiry Officers and Enquiry Committees, and that the requirement was for appointment of an Enquiry Officer or persons constituting the Enquiry Committee from a department of the establishment other than the Security Department.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the learned single Judge, which had set aside the punishment awarded to the respondent on the ground that the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer was not permissible under the Standing Orders.

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) A short legal question involved in this Special Appeal is as to whether in a domestic enquiry in an industrial dispute, an outsider could be appointed as Enquiry Officer or not. The learned single Judge, by judgment and order dated September 29, 1995 held that in view of the Standing order 16 (2) (Kha), an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer. Hence, the proceedings were vitialcd. The appellant-establishment, Indian Telephone Industries. Rac-Bareli. has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 3 ) IT appears that the respondent, as an employee of the establishment, was charged with some misconduct. An Advocate was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry into the charges against the petitioner-respondent. The petitioner- respondent, on the basis of the enquiry report, was awarded punishment. He challenged the punishment and one of the grounds pressed before the learned Single Judge was that an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer in the teeth of the Standing Orders 16 (2) (Kha ). The learned Single Judge followed a decision, as relied upon by the petitioner respondent, reported in (1995-I-LLJ-668) (A P); G. Chandra Kanth v. Guntur District Milk Producers Union Ltd. . Bye-law 27 of the relevant Bye-laws provided that the disciplinary authority could itself hold the domestic enquiry or could cause enquiry to be held by any other authority superior in rank to the employee charged. The disciplinary authority, on the other hand, had appointed an Advocate as Enquiry Officer. The Bye-laws, as indicated above, permitted enquiry by the disciplinary authority or any other authority superior in rank to the delinquent. It was thus held that the enquiry was vitiated.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the decision in the case of G. Chandra Kanth (Supra) as not applicable. Hence, the learned single Judge erred in following the said decision. It is submitted that it was based on Bye-law 27 of the Bye-laws applicable in that case which permitted holding of the enquiry by the disciplinary authority or any other authority superior in rank to the delinquent but, in the present case, there is no such Bye-law. Hence, the judgment is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) IN view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we may peruse the standing Order applicable, in the present case.

( 6 ) AN extract of Standing Order 16 (2) (b) is reproduced below :

"16 (2) (b) On receipt of the explanation of the employee or on expiry of the time limit whichever is earlier or under special circumstances at the time of issuing the chargeshect, the Manager shall appoint an Enquiry Officer or constitute an Enquiry Committee consisting of one or more than one person, other than from Security Department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that in case an Enquiry Committee is constituted, it should consist of persons other than from Security Department. Apart from the above, there is no other restriction and any person can be appointed an Enquiry Officer or one constituting the enquiry Committee. It is further submitted that the restriction placed about a person not being from the Security Department, applies only where an Enquiry committee is constituted and not where an Enquiry Officer is appointed. In our view, the interpretation of Standing Order I6 (2) (b)as made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not correct. It cannot be said that if an enquiry Officer is to be appointed he can be even from the Security Department but where an enquiry Committee is to be constituted then a person belonging to the Security Department cannot constitute the Committee. As a matter of fact, the last clause "other than from Security department" is applicable to both Enquiry Officer as well as Enquiry Commit









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top