Telangana High Court
M.K. Kumar vs Tsrtc on 22 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.33250 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal, i.e., Labour Court-III, Hyderabad dt.16.09.2021 in I.D.No.06 of 2020 as illegal and arbitrary for not granting the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner into service along with consequential benefits and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation on 22.05.2002. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 01.07.2018 to 30.07.2018. According to the petitioner, he was on sick leave prior to the said period and even after the expiry of the said period, when he did not recover, he was under treatment of a private hospital and after obtaining fitness certificate on 30.07.2018, he appeared before the disciplinary authority along with a joining report. It W.P.No.33250 of 2021 2 is submitted that on the very same day, he was issued a charge sheet for unauthorised absence of 30 days from 01.07.2018 to 30.07.2018 and that the petitioner had submitted his explanation that he was earlier on sick leave and that he was under treatment and after obtaining fitness certificate, he is attending to duty. But, taking the same to be his explanation to the charge sheet, an enquiry officer was appointed on the very same day and the enquiry was also conducted and concluded on the very same day at 18:45 hours and thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority on 06.08.2018. The petitioner submitted his comments or objections to the enquiry report and thereafter, a show-cause notice dt.27.09.2018 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation to the proposed punishment of removal from service. However, observing that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of removal from service was passed on 12.11.2018. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager, Nalgonda, Review to the Regional Manager and mercy petition to the Executive Director, but all of them have been rejected and the petitioner filed I.D.No.6 of 2020 before the Industrial Tribunal challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry and also the punishment of removal from service. The Tribunal, vide orders W.P.No.33250 of 2021 3 dt.16.09.2021 has upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry, but modified the punishment to compulsory retirement. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working sincerely all along and only due to his illness, the petitioner could not attend to his duties in the months of June and July, 2018. He submitted that he had taken treatment from RTC hospital at Tarnaka during the month of June, 2018 and since he was not well even in the month of July, 2018, he was under treatment of a private hospital and had appeared for joining his duty along with a fitness certificate on 30.07.2018. He submitted that on the very same day, he was served with the charge sheet to which the petitioner submitted his explanation with the hope that it would be considered and a lenient view would be taken thereon but instead, the authorities have appointed an enquiry officer and the enquiry was also conducted on the very same day. He submits that the hurry in which the enquiry was conducted is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the person who has given the report about the absenteeism of the petitioner was examined as a witness of the management, but the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine him. He submitted that there is a reference W.P.No.33250 of 2021 4 to some documents given along with the charge sheet, but the petitioner was not given any opportunity to make his submissions on the same and his statement was also recorded on the very same day without giving any time for preparation. Therefore, according to him, the enquiry is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also in violation of the Rules. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the facts in proper perspective but has only modified the punishment of removal from service to that of the compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others 1 for the proposition that where there is no legal evidence for a conclusion to be arrived at in an enquiry, then it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order of removal from service and also the order of modifying the punishment order to compulsory retirement by the Tribunal. He submitted that the respondents have followed all due procedure in conducting the enquiry and it was the petitioner who has submitted his explanation on the very same day of receipt of the charge 1 (1999) SCC (LS) 429 W.P.No.33250 of 2021 5 sheet and in accordance with the rules, the enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted. It is submitted that the Tribunal, after taking all the above facts into consideration, has upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry and after taking into consideration the health condition of the petitioner only, the appellate authority has modified the order of removal from service to compulsory retirement and therefore, there was no reason or basis for interference.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that in the charge sheet, the respondents have given the details of the period of unauthorised absence. The proforma also contained the period of absence on the earlier occasions and there does not seem to be any such occasion where the petitioner was absent unauthorisedly. The only period of absence is mentioned as 30 days, i.e., from 01.07.2018 to 30.07.2018. It may be a ground for issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner. However, the respondents ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The respondents seem to have considered the explanation given on the very same day and without giving any time for him to retrospect, has appointed the enquiry officer and has also conducted the enquiry. This hurry in conducting the enquiry on the very same day smacks of W.P.No.33250 of 2021 6 arbitrariness and bias against the petitioner. The enquiry report was also submitted within a period of six days thereafter and the show-cause notice was issued for removal from service thereafter. All these facts and circumstances go to demonstrate that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner in accordance with principles of natural justice. Further, the punishment proposed for unauthorised absence was removal from service. The order does not seem to have considered the reasons given by the petitioner for the unauthorised absence, if any. Therefore, even the punishment proposed was highly excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. The Tribunal has not considered that the enquiry conducted on the very same day of issuance of the charge sheet is in violation of any rule or principles of natural justice. The rules provide for a minimum of 7 days for any person to submit his/her explanation to the charge sheet. Merely because the petitioner has submitted his explanation, the respondents need not have acted in such a hurried manner and appointed the enquiry officer also on the very same day. In view of the same, this Court is satisfied that the enquiry has not been conducted properly and the Tribunal has not considered the facts in proper perspective. W.P.No.33250 of 2021 7
6. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal dt.16.09.2021 in I.D.No.06 of 2020 both on the validity of the enquiry as well as on the punishment imposed is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and conduct an enquiry, if any, or reconsider imposing a lesser punishment than what is imposed. The petitioner shall be eligible for all consequential benefits.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 22.04.2024 Svv