Back
2004 (2) AWC 1365
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
Sunil Ambwani, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 55148 of 2002
Decided on January 28, 2004
Gurucharan Singh
Versus
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and others
Natural Justice - Domestic Enquiry - Factories Act, 1948 - [Diesel Mechanic W3] - [Factories Act, 1948, Section 41C(c), Section 48(i)(a)(b)] - The court found that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to defend himself and that the principles of natural justice were deliberately violated. The petitioner's grievance regarding medical examination and pending promotion was not addressed. The court held that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to lead evidence, and the respondents failed to consider his defense. The entire enquiry proceedings were tainted with bias and violative of principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Diesel Mechanic W3, joined National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and was involved in a domestic enquiry following allegations of misbehavior and assault. The petitioner raised grievances regarding medical examination and pending promotion, which were not addressed. The petitioner was denied the opportunity to defend himself, and the principles of natural justice were violated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to defend himself and that the principles of natural justice were deliberately violated. The petitioner's grievance regarding medical examination and pending promotion was not addressed. The court held that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to lead evidence, and the respondents failed to consider his defense. The entire enquiry proceedings were tainted with bias and violative of principles of natural justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's denial of the opportunity to defend himself, violation of principles of natural justice, and the failure to address the petitioner's grievances regarding medical examination and pending promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not given the opportunity to defend himself, and the principles of natural justice were deliberately violated. The court also found that the petitioner's grievances were not addressed, and the entire enquiry proceedings were tainted with bias and violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner was relegated to the stage of close of management's witnesses. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service and paid his entire arrears of salary. The Disciplinary Authority was directed to change the Inquiry Officer and conclude the inquiry expeditiously. The petitioner was entitled to costs from the respondents.
Sunil Ambwani, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the enquiry report dated 19.9.1999 submitted by Sri S. R. Khaneja, and the consequential order dated 16.8.2001, passed by the General Manager, National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd., imposing a penalty of removal from service and to quash the order dated 14.9.2002, by which the petitioner’s review application was dismissed.
2. I have heard Sri F. S. Chauhan and Sri S. Alim Khan for petitioner, and Sri H. R. Misra for respondents.
3. Sri H. R. Misra has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that a domestic enquiry was held and that all the grounds taken in the writ petition against the order of removal from service, are in violation of standing orders applicable to National Thermal Power Corporation (in short N.T.P.C.) employees, and thus the petitioner has alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He relies upon Rajasthan State Trading Corporation v. Krishna Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 1715, in support of the objections.
4. Before dealing with the preliminary objections, it will be appropriate to set out the facts giving rise to this writ petition.
5. The petitioner joined National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. on 23.7.1986, as Diesel Mechanic, Grade W3, at Rihand Super Thermal Power Project. He was transferred on 11.11.1991 and posted at Ash Handling Plant of National Capital Power Station at Vidyut Nagar, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The Principal and Teachers of Delhi Public School in the campus at Vidyut Nagar, made a complaint on 27.10.1998 against him of misbehaviour. The respondent No. 4, it is alleged, by his letter dated 29.10.1998, called for an explanation. The petitioner has disputed the service of this show cause notice upon him. An F.I.R. was lodged by Sri A. C. Chaturvedi, Assistant General Manager (H.R.), N.T.P.C. Ltd. against the petitioner on 31.10.1998 alleging that on 30.10.1998, the petitioner hit him from behind by his Scooter, near the shopping complex in the township at Vidyut Nagar, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The Deputy General Manager (Ash Handling Plant), suspended the petitioner from service on 31.10.1998. A memorandum of charge dated 5.11.1998 was served upon the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager (A.H.P.). Sri S. R. Khaneja, Ex-General Manager (I/C) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was granted bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 1998 under Sections 379, 338, I.P.C. registered in pursuance of the F.I.R. dated 31.10.1998. On 2.12.1998, Sri Pradeep Mehta, Manager (P.A. Admn.) N.T.P.C. Ltd. was appointed as Presenting Officer to conduct the proceedings.
6. The petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16349 of 1999 with a prayer to stay the departmental enquiry until the conclusion of criminal trial in Case Crime No. 99 of 1998. By an order dated 20.4.1999, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that it shall be open to the petitioner to file a fresh representation raising all the objections, which he may like to raise, as preliminary objection at this stage, regarding continuance of the disciplinary proceeding, so long as criminal case is not decided by the concerned authority. The concerned authority was directed to decide the representation by reasoned order within one month, and that for a period of two weeks the respondents were directed not to take any adverse action to the interest of petitioner. The Court expressed confidence that the authority will proceed in the matter impartially and act strictly in accordance with law. The disciplinary authority overruled the objection by giving detailed reasons.
7. A second Writ Petition No. 47471 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.5.1999 rejecting his representation. The writ petition was dismissed on 19.8.1999 with the finding that the nature of allegations in the criminal case do not appear
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
