JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Chaturvedi, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This is employer's writ petition filed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSRTC’) being aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2017 passed by Labour Court, U.P. in Adjudication Case No. 20 of 1998. Respondent-2, Workman, was a Conductor in UPSRTC and on the charge of carrying passengers without ticket, inquiry was conducted and, thereafter, major penalty of removal was imposed upon him. Workman raised an industrial dispute. In exercise of powers under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1947’), following Reference was made for adjudication to Labour Court:

^^D;k lsok;kstd }kjk vius Jfed Jh dfiynso flag iq= Jh Hkwyu flag dh lsok;sa fnukad 22-03- 1990 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk vuqfpr ,oa voS/kkfud gS ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\**

"Whether termination of services by employer of its workman Sri Kapildev Singh son of Sri Bhulan Singh with effect from 22.3.90 is unjust and illegal. If not, to what benefit/relief the workman is entitled to and with further details?"

(English Translation by Court)

3. Labour Court found that neither departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law giving adequate opportunity of defense to employee concerned nor the punishment is justified. Consequently, it has answered the Reference by holding that termination of Workman was illegal and bad in law and relief of reinstatement has been granted vide award dated 17.1.2017 but with regard to back wages, it has awarded only 20 per cent back wages.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that Workman was carrying passengers without ticket which was a serious misconduct, therefore, he was rightly awarded punishment.

5. Be that as it may, we find that in the case in hand before imposing major penalty no oral inquiry was conducted inasmuch on 28.7.1989 charge-sheet was handed over to Workman and on 29.7.1989, i.e. on the very next day, inquiry report was submitted. A major penalty, without conducting regular inquiry or oral inquiry could not have been awarded. Law in this regard is well-settled by series of judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court and it may be useful to refer few of them as under.

6. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Court has held:

"An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the un-rebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."

"When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service."

(Emphasis added)

7. Similar view was taken in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, where Court said:

"Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delin