Waman Bhivaji Ingole vs The Superintending Engineer, Ehv ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3508 Bom

                                            1               WP NO.3979 OF 1995

                 
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                   
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.3979 OF 1995


               Waman s/o Bhivaji Ingole




                                                  
               r/o at & Po: Bhandegaon,
               Tq.Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani.

               (died)




                                          
               Through L.Rs.
                             
               Smt. Jankabai wd/o Waman Ingole
               R/o Bhandegaon, Tq. Hingoli.
                            
                                                    ... Petitioner
                       Versus

      1.       The Superintendent Engineer,
               EHV Construction Circle,
      


               MSEB, Shkti Sahakar Bldg.
               Aurangabad.
   



      2.       The Executive Engineer,
               EHV Construction Divn.





               MSEB Old Power House Bldg.
               Campus, Parli-Vaidyanath,
               Dist. Beed.

      3.       The Asstt. Engineer,
               EHTV Line Sub-divn.





               MSEB, Nanded.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS

                                  ...
      Mr. A.S.Kale, Advocate h/f Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for
      Petitioner;
      Mr. D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1, 2 and 3.
                                 ...




    ::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:41:15 :::
                                              2                   WP NO.3979 OF 1995

                                   CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.




                                                                                
                                   DATE : June 30th, 2016.
                                            ...




                                                        
      JUDGMENT:

1. Shri D.P.Palodkar, learned Counsel appears for

Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Service Complete.

2.

Present petition is filed against the judgment

and order dated 20.2.1990 passed by the Labour Judge,

Aurangabad, in Complaint (ULP) No.73/1986. Since the

said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by filing

Revision Application bearing Revision (ULP) No.86/1994,

before the Industrial Court, Jalna, and the same was also

dismissed by the said Court on 21.2.1995, the petitioner

has assailed the said judgment and order also.

3. During the pendency of the present petition, the

petitioner died and his legal heir was brought on record

who has prosecuted the present petition further.

      4.               Petitioner      was   in   the    employment             of     the





                                                     3                      WP NO.3979 OF 1995

      respondents as a Driver.                      He was dismissed from the




                                                                                         

services vide order passed by respondent no.2 with effect

from 8.5.1986. Before his dismissal, a Departmental

Enquiry was conducted against him on an allegation that,

in intoxicated condition he, unauthorizedly, drove the

vehicle of the respondent Board, and caused an accident,

hitting a truck of the respondent Department bearing

Truck No.MHB 9056 and also to another vehicle bearing

No.MHB-9069 and also a trolly bearing registration

No.MHB 8344 which was stationed in the premises of the

Nanded office of the respondents. It was also alleged that

the petitioner had also hit one electric pole. Petitioner

was further alleged to have caused loss to the property of

the respondents. The charges of gross negligence,

indisciplined behaviour, breach of Rules, Regulations,

Circulars, abuse of Board's property, unauthorized use of

the vehicle of the Board, etc. were levelled against him

and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him.

Petitioner was held guilty in the Departmental Enquiry so

held and having regard to the serious charges proved

against the petitioner, punishment of dismissal was

imposed on him. Petitioner availed the remedy of filing

4 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

appeal before the Departmental authorities but could not

get any relief. The punishment of dismissal imposed on

him was not disturbed. Petitioner, therefore, filed a

complaint before the Labour Court alleging unfair labour

practices on the part of the respondents. The Labour

Court, however, did not find any merit in the complaint so

filed by the petitioner and hence dismissed the complaint.

Petitioner challenged the said order before the Industrial

Court by filing Revision Application, however, the same

also was rejected by the Industrial Court. Petitioner,

eventually, preferred the present writ petition challenging

the order passed by the respondents and also the orders

passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.

5. Shri A.S.Kale, learned Counsel, holding for Shri

S.B.Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, false charges were levelled against the petitioner at

the instance of one Shri R.P.Gaval, the Assistant Engineer,

and false departmental enquiry was conducted against the

petitioner. Learned Counsel further submitted that no

proper opportunity was given to the petitioner of defending

himself in the departmental proceedings. Learned

5 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

Counsel further submitted that Shri R.P.Gaval, at whose

instance the complaint was filed against the petitioner,

acted as a Board representative in the departmental

enquiry proceedings and on this count alone, the enquiry

proceedings are liable to be vitiated. Learned Counsel

taking me through the report of enquiry and the evidence

adduced in the departmental enquiry proceedings,

submitted that no such evidence has come on record on

the basis of which the charges levelled against the

petitioner can be said to have been proved. Learned

Counsel further submitted that the witnesses who were

examined in the departmental enquiry were not present at

the relevant time on the spot and, as such, could not have

deposed anything about the alleged incident, however, the

enquiry officer has blindly relied upon their evidence.

Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner got

acquitted in a criminal case which was instituted against

him in connection with the same incident on the basis of

which departmental proceedings were initiated against

him. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the

acquittal recorded by the competent Criminal Court, the

findings recorded in the departmental proceeding need to

6 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel submitted

that the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court,

unfortunately, failed in appreciating the objections raised

by the petitioner as regards to the departmental enquiry

proceedings and erroneously held the enquiry to be fair

and proper and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer

to be not perverse. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed

for setting aside the orders passed by the Labour Court as

well as the Industrial Court and, consequently, to set aside

the order of dismissal and to direct reinstatement of the

petitioner with continuity of service and full backwages.

6. Opposing the submissions advanced on behalf

of the petitioner, Shri D.P.Palodkar, learned Counsel

appearing for the respondents submitted that after having

considered the evidence on record, the Labour Court has

recorded a finding that the departmental enquiry

conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper.

Learned Counsel further submitted that by recording

reasons the Labour Court has held that the findings

recorded in the enquiry are not perverse. Learned

Counsel further submitted that considering the serious

7 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

charges proved against the petitioner in the departmental

enquiry, the Labour Court has also held the punishment of

dismissal to be proper and has, therefore, refused to cause

interference in the said order. Learned Counsel further

submitted that in the Revision (ULP) filed by the petitioner

before the Industrial Court the issues which are raised in

the present petition were raised by the petitioner but the

Industrial Court has turned down all those objections and

has confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court.

Learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the

Courts below are well reasoned orders and no interference

is called for in the order so passed. Learned Counsel

submitted that in the departmental proceedings the

principles of natural justice were scrupulously followed and

no material has been brought on record by the petitioner

so as to show that he was deprived of any opportunity to

defend himself in the said proceedings. Learned Counsel,

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. After having considered the submissions made

on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the

respective parties and on perusal of the impugned

8 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

judgment and the material on record, apparently, there

seems no reasons for causing any interference in the

orders respectively passed by the Labour Court and the

Industrial Court impugned in the present petitions. From

the material on record it is quite clear that in the

departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner

the procedure prescribed under the law was scrupulously

followed.

Nothing has been brought to my notice so as

to differ from the finding recorded by the Labour Court as

about fairness of the enquiry conducted against the

petitioner.

8. Having regard to the material on record, there

seems no substance in the allegation made by the

petitioner that the evidence of the witnesses recorded in

the departmental proceedings could not have been relied

upon. Nothing has been brought on record by the

petitioner to show as to why the witnesses deposed

against him in the departmental proceedings. The

further contention of the petitioner that since the

competent Criminal Court has acquitted him of the

charges, the finding in the enquiry proceedings cannot be

9 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

sustained also cannot be accepted. It is well settled that

in a criminal case where the offence alleged against the

accused is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the

departmental proceedings the conclusions are drawn on

the basis of pre-ponderance of probabilities. Acquittal in a

criminal case may not have any impact on the findings

recorded in the departmental enquiry proceedings.

9. After having perused the entire material on

record, it does not appear to me that any case is made out

by the petitioner for causing interference in the orders

impugned in the present petition. The doctrine of

proportionality was pressed by the learned Counsel in

submitting that the nature of misconduct alleged against

the petitioner was of not that serious nature for imposing

ultimate punishment of dismissal. This submission must

also be rejected in view of the fact that the charge against

the petitioner was that he, in a drunken condition,

unauthorizedly drove the vehicle of the respondents and

consecutively hit three vehicles causing huge damage.

The petitioner also is alleged to have hit an electric pole.

Such disorderly behaviour of a person employed as a

10 WP NO.3979 OF 1995

driver is to be viewed seriously and no leniency can be

shown in such cases. It does not appear to me that the

punishment awarded to the petitioner of dismissal was in

any way disproportionate.

10. The Writ Petition is devoid of any substance and

deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed

without any order as to costs. Rule discharged.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

...

AGP/3979-95wp