Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Allahabad Bank Staff Association Thru Its General Secy. - Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour - Respondent
Writ - C No. 1004474 of 2010
Decided On : 18-01-2024
LTC Fraud - Employment Dispute - S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 594, The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Ors., JT 2010 (2) SC 566, Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2011 (269) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568, State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008) 15 SSC 711, Smt. Darshan Devi @ Darshan Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (decided on 25.03.2022) - The judgment discusses the legal requirement of giving reasons for decisions, the principles of natural justice, and the importance of recording reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial orders. It emphasizes that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained and that non-recording of reasons renders the order unsustainable. The judgment also highlights that non-recording of reasons, non-consideration of admissible evidence, or consideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order unsustainable. It further emphasizes that the absence of reasons in an order renders it arbitrary and illegal, and that the requirement to record reasons is virtually a component of human rights and is part of due process. The judgment concludes that the order inflicting punishment without reasons is in violation of principles of natural justice and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an employment dispute where a bank employee was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for fraudulently claiming Leave Travel Concession (LTC). The disciplinary authority passed a punishment order withdrawing the special allowance of the employee, which was upheld by the appellate authority. The industrial dispute raised by the employee was dismissed by the Tribunal, leading to the filing of a writ petition challenging the validity of the punishment order and the appellate order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the punishment order was bereft of any reasoning, in violation of principles of natural justice, and arbitrary and illegal. It held that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by trying to read the findings of the inquiry officer as the reasons given by the disciplinary authority, which were not existing in the order of the disciplinary authority, and substituted its reasons in the said order. The Court also noted that the order of the Tribunal was illegal and arbitrary as it did not take the logical conclusion that the order of punishment was bereft of reasons and allowed the stand of the employer by proceeding to hold that the workman had been given full opportunity during disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the validity of the punishment order, the requirement of giving reasons for decisions, the principles of natural justice, and the jurisdiction of the appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the legal requirement of giving reasons for decisions, the principles of natural justice, and the importance of recording reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial orders. It emphasized that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained and that non-recording of reasons renders the order unsustainable. The Court also highlighted that the absence of reasons in an order renders it arbitrary and illegal, and that the requirement to record reasons is virtually a component of human rights and is part of due process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed with all consequential benefits, and the award dated 21.01.2010, appellate order dated 20.03.2002, and punishment order dated 19.12.2001 were set aside.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of award dated 21.01.2010, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby claim of the petitioner no. 2 - workman has been rejected and the reference has been accordingly answered denying the relief to the petitioner-workman. In the present writ petition the petitioners have also assailed the punishment order dated 19.12.2001 as well as appellate order dated 20.03.2002.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no. 2 - workman who was working with the respondent - Bank and was employed in the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Branch of Allahabad Bank at Gonda and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of the fact that on 18.09.1997, the petitioner - workman has fraudulently claimed Leave Travel Concession (hereinafter referred to as "LTC"). The petitioner after availing the benefit of LTC, submitted bills for expenses amounting to Rs.17,553/- which showed that he had traveled in AC IInd Class from Gonda to Banglore City, but subsequently it was found that petitioner no. 2 had infact cancelled the said ticket and had not traveled or availed the LTC from Gonda to Banglore City and had fraudulently claimed the LTC and accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him on 13.10.1999. The enquiry officer was appointed who after giving due opportunity to the workman submitted his report on 14.06.2000, pursuant to which the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice on 03.01.2001, supplying him the copy of inquiry report to which the workman duly replied.
4. After considering the reply of the petitioner - workman the punishment order was passed on 19.12.2001, by which the special allowance of the workman was withdrawn w.e.f. 19.12.2001. The workman thereafter filed an appeal against the order of punishment was also rejected on 20.03.2002.
5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that a industrial dispute was raised by the Allahabad Bank Staff Association on behalf of petitioner no. 2 - workman and the question which was referred to the Tribunal was as to "Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank in imposing the punishment of withdrawal of special allowance to Shri Ram Lal, Special Assistant w.e.f. 19.12.2001 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
6. The Tribunal had considered the validity of the domestic enquiry and framed the issue as to "Whether the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry in utter disregard to principles of natural justice as alleged in the statement of claim?" and duly answered the said issue in favour of the respondents holding that the workman was given due opportunity of hearing at all the stages of the enquiry. A further question was raised by the workman that the order of punishment dated 19.12.2001 did not spelt out any reason and same has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice.
7. In this regard the Tribunal held that the legal position is not disputed that order of disciplinary authority and appellate authority must be based on recorded reasons and also held that detailed reasons have not been recorded in the impugned orders, but he was satisfied that the appellate order contained reasons and therefore it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the workman and consequently dismissed the reference and rejected the claim of the workman.
8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had vehemently submitted before all the authorities including the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority that inadvertently cancellation report of ticket had been annexed alongwith the claim for LTC and it was only on account of this mistake that proceedings were initiated and there was no
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement to record reasons for decisions is a fundamental aspect of natural justice and is essential for the validity of judicial and q....
Labour Law – Imposition of penalty – No opportunity of hearing – Matter remitted back
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment order against an employee must provide good and sufficient reasons, and a non-speaking order is not sufficient.
The necessity of providing reasons in administrative decisions is crucial for ensuring accountability and facilitating judicial review.
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
