Bombay High Court
Ravindra Nandkishor Gupta vs The Executive Engineer Maharashtra ... on 8 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:745
-1-
wp9914.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
963 WRIT PETITION NO. 9914 OF 2022
Ravindra Nandkishor Gupta
age 60 years, occ. Retired servant
r/o At Post "Vaibhav Building"
Behind Dr. Thatte Hospital,
Doubt Gin, Old Jalna, Jalna
Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Executive Engineer
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.
Division No. 1, Jalna
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
2. The Assistant Engineer
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Company Ltd.
Sub-Division Bhokardan,
Tq. Bhokardan,Dist. Jalna. ....Respondents
Mr. V. P. Golewar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of
admission.
wp9914.22.odt
2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated
20.01.2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Jalna in
complaint ULP No. 257/2012 wherein, while deciding preliminary
issue it is held that the enquiry conducted against the
Petitioner/complainant is fair and proper and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer are not perverse.
3. The parties are referred to as complainant and
Respondents (MSEDCL) for the sake of brevity.
4. Complainant is permanent employee of the Respondents
and joined services in the year 1978 as a daily wager. He was
confirmed in the service as a Line Helper from 1986 and later came
to be designated as Technician with effect from 2002. On
23.05.2012, charge-sheet came to be issued by Respondents against
complainant under Rule 86(3) read with Item No. 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 22
and 23 of the Employees Service Rules. Amongst other allegations of
misconduct, it is also alleged that he is negligent in his work.
Complainant asked for the documents to substantiate his defence.
The documents were not provided to him. However, departmental
enquiry proceeded with. It is the case of complainant that the
wp9914.22.odt
enquiry conducted against him is not fair and proper and there is
violation of principles of natural justice. On the basis of report of
Enquiry Officer, show cause notice came to be issued to him on
18.10.2012 without supplying report of the Enquiry Officer. This
has culminated into imposition of penalty of stoppage of three
increments with cumulative effect. He filed complaint under Items 9
and 10 of MRTU and PULP Act taking exception to the said order.
5. Before the Industrial Court, preliminary issue was
framed as to whether the enquiry conducted against complainant is
fair and proper and findings are perverse. There is no dispute about
the fact that both the parties did not lead any evidence but the said
issue was decided on the basis of the proceedings of enquiry placed
before the Industrial Court. The learned Industrial Court held that
the enquiry is fair and proper and findings of enquiry are not
perverse.
6. Learned counsel for complainant submits that in the said
enquiry conducted against him, no evidence was adduced nor any
document was proved. It is his submission that before conducting
enquiry, request was made for providing relevant documents which
wp9914.22.odt
was not conceded and hence prejudice and irreparable loss has been
caused to the complainant. It is his submission that learned
Industrial Court has committed serious error in deciding the
preliminary issue against the complainant only on the ground that he
had admitted to have received charge-sheet and understood the
charges levelled against him.
7. Learned counsel for Respondents though took pains to
justify the impugned order, was unsuccessful in doing so. He
submitted that since the Industrial Court has considered the
proceedings of departmental enquiry as well as report of the Enquiry
Ofifcer and since said finding is recorded by the Enquiry Officer on
the basis of documents placed on record, no interference is called for
in the said order.
8. Perusal of the proceedings of enquiry shows that no
witness was examined in order to prove mis-conduct alleged against
the complainant. Enquiry Officer posed certain questions to the
management representative. His statement was recorded. The
Enquiry Officer has also considered the documents placed on record
by the management representative. There is no dispute about the
wp9914.22.odt
fact that no witness was examined by the Respondents to prove the
documents sought to be placed on record or to prove the alleged mis-
conduct against the complainant. Since the documents sought to be
relied upon were not proved through any witness, it was not open for
the Enquiry Officer to place reliance on the same to hold complainant
guilty of misconduct. Apart from this, the complainant was denied
opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the person who
would have proved the said documents or who was the author of the
said documents. This Court is conscious of the position of law that
the proof of mis-conduct in departmental enquiry is permissible on
preponderance of possibility and strict proof thereof is not required.
This, however, does not mean that there is absolutely no evidence
and still mis-conduct is held proved against the workman.
9. This is the case wherein without there being any
evidence on record the Enquiry Ofifcer has held the complainant
guilty of some of the charges. On the basis of this report he was
imposed penalty of stopping three increments with cumulative effect.
10. The impugned order passed by the learned Industrial
Court indicates that only for the reason that the complainant has
wp9914.22.odt
admitted to have received charge-sheet along with all necessary
papers and has admitted the charges, preliminary issue was decided
against him. Though, nothing was proved against complainant,
Industrial Court further proceeded to hold that it is proved that the
complainant was in the habit of leaving head quarter without prior
permission and not being serious in recovery of dues from the
consumers and joining hands with them. This finding recorded by
the Industrial Court is perverse for want of any evidence of
whatsoever nature to support the same.
11. As a result of above discussion, the order passed by the
Industrial Court cannot sustain. Hence, it is held that the enquiry
conduced against complainant is not fair and proper and the findings
of Enquiry Officer are perverse and hence not sustainable. In the
result, appeal is allowed. Industrial Court to proceed further with
Complaint ULP No. 257/2015 in accordance with law.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
