Back
1957 Supreme(All) 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. L. Chaturvedi, J.
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
KUNDAN LAL - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 201 Of 1956
Decided On : 01/29/1957
Brij Lal Gupta
Headnote:
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT - DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES - NEGLIGENCE - AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO MAKE ORDER - RAILWAY ESTABLISHMENT CODE - REASONABLE FACILITIES FOR PREPARATION OF DEFENCE - AGREEMENT TO RELINQUISH RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT - NULL AND VOID.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a railway employee, was found to have lost a sum of money entrusted to him for custody. The railway authorities ordered the deduction of the amount from his salary, relying on the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the Railway Establishment Code. The employee challenged the order before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, who allowed his application and ordered the restoration of the deductions. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, contending that the authority had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the railway authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had the jurisdiction to consider whether the case fell under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, which permits deductions for loss of money due to negligence or default of the employee. However, the authority could not set aside an order covered by Clause (h) of the same sub-section, which permits deductions required to be made by order of a court or other authority competent to make such order.
Issues: 1. Whether the authority under the Payment of Wages Act had the jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the railway authorities. 2. Whether the order of the railway authorities was justified under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the Railway Establishment Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The authority under the Payment of Wages Act had the jurisdiction to consider whether the case fell under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, which permits deductions for loss of money due to negligence or default of the employee. However, the authority could not set aside an order covered by Clause (h) of the same sub-section, which permits deductions required to be made by order of a court or other authority competent to make such order. 2. The order of the railway authorities was justified under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act and the Railway Establishment Code. The employee was given reasonable facilities to prepare his defense, and the order was passed by an officer authorized to do so under the Railway Establishment Code.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, restoring the order of the railway authorities.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and arises under the following circumstances.
( 2 ) THE first respondent Sri Kundan Lal was an employee of the petitioner in the Central Railway. In 1953 he was working as the goods clerk in ward at Belanganj, Agra. On the 2nd June 1953 the 1st respondent received two bags of money containing a total sum of Rs. 4098/12/- and this amount was to be put in the iron safe. According to the 1st respondent, he put the money in the safe at about 7-30 p. m. and he locked the safe after putting the money in it. The next morning, however, at 8-30 he found that the lock of the iron safe was already open and the cash was missing. Enquiries immediately started and on the 11th June 1953 the 1st respondent was put under suspension pending an officers enquiry. The enquiry was held and it appears that the report of the enquiry committee was that the 1st respondent was negligent in the discharge of his duties. On the 10th July 1953 a chargesheet was framed against the 1st respondent, which charged him with neglect of duty on his part, which had resulted in the loss to the Railway Administration. The neglect of duty was alleged to be that he failed to lock the safe after putting the cash in it.
( 3 ) IN paragraph 11 of the affidavit, filed along with the petition, it is stated that the 1st respondent applied for permission to see the record of the proceedings before the enquiry committee and permission was granted to him to inspect the record. He also asked for three days leave to prepare his reply, and the same was also granted to the 1st respondent. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit, the 1st respondent has only averred that the contents of paragraph 11 of the affidavit, filed along with the petition, were irrelevant. On the 16th July 1953 the 1st respondent filed his explanation. On the 21st August 1953 the Area Superintendent of Agra served the 1st respondent with a notice intimating to him that his reply was unsatisfactory and that he had failed to explain the charge. He stated that penalty of removal from service was proposed to be inflicted upon him and he (1st respondent) was required to show cause within seven days why the said penalty be not inflicted. The 1st respondent then submitted his explanation to this notice on the 26th August 1953. He wanted to be heard in person and was examined at some length by the Officer on the 2nd september 1953. The very next day an order was passed setting aside the suspension of the 1st respondent and he was permitted to resume his duties. It appears that, while making his statement before the officer, the 1st respondent had made a very qualified sort of statement saying that, if the Officer after taking into consideration his explanation and other things still considered that the penalty of debiting the 1st respondent with the amount of loss was justified, the 1st respondent would he willing to accept the punishment in order to save him from punishment of removal from service.
( 4 ) ON the 26th August 1954, the 1st respondent was served with a notice to show cause within three days of its receipt why the penalty of recovering from his pay the total amount of the loss at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month be not imposed upon him. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation on the 2nd September 1954 and it also appears that in this explanation he demanded copies of all the statements of witnesses against him. This request was not accepted and, after considering the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, it was decided to recover the amount from the 1st respondents salary as proposed earlier.
( 5 ) THE 1st respondent went up in appeal against that order, which was dismissed on the 19th october 1954. He then filed another appeal to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, which was dismissed on the 11th March 1955. The 1st respondent then approached the authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act and fi
