Ram Kumar vs I.T.D.C. (Ashoka Hotel Unit)
2002 Latest Caselaw 356 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Award dated 30.11.1999, passed in I.D.No. 307/86 (New No. 38/94). Directions are sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time in June, 1985 was employed at the Ashoka Hotel Unit, Chanakyapuri of M/s ITDC as a Houseman. The charge against the workman was that on 29.5.1985, while on duty on third floor of the hotel, between 19.20 hours to 22.00 hours, he entered room No. 336 occupied by one Miss J.L. Hill of British High Commission, Kabul and stole Rs. 150/- from the handbag of the guest.

3. It is the case of the management that on the complaint of the guest, preliminary investigation were done. The petitioner accepted his guilt before the Assistant Manager and refunded the sum of Rs. 150/-, which he had removed. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued on 14.6.1985. The petitioner did not respond to the same initially and filed a reply only on 6.8.1985. Mr. R.C. Girotra, Manager of the respondent Hotel was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. An enquiry was conducted by the said officer after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, who examined himself. The petitioner and the person assisting were afforded due opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses. The Enquiry Officer returned the finding of guilt of the petitioner. The Management after considering the report of the enquiry officer imposed the penalty of dismissal form service.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Janani very fervently urged before me that the respondents had failed to examine the guest Ms. J.L. Hill, who was the complainant and the prime witness. A list of witnesses was not furnished and documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The enquiry was thus vitiated. She almost submitted that it was in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that the Enquiry Officer who was appointed had not been appointed by a duly constituted authority and the enquiry officer was thus having no power to conduct the enquiry. Respondents have failed to produce the relevant authorisation supported by rules.

6. Learned counsel further assailed the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the two main witnesses on behalf of the respondent were not examined before the enquiry officer rather their statements, as recorded in the preliminary enquiry, were transferred to the enquiry file. Learned counsel next submitted that there was no eye witness to the crime; Further no one had seen the petitioner entering or coming out f the room in question. The Floor Manager was not produced as a witness. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that for a paltry sum of Rs. 150/- the punishment imposed was shocking and disproportionate to the offence and the career of a young man was sought to be nipped in the bud.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has been heard in opposition and in response to the pleas urged by the petitioner. As far as the first contention is concerned, in my view, the non-examination of the guest a foreign national during the enquiry cannot, in any manner, be either fatal to the enquiry or said to dilute the same. It would almost be impossible and impractical to expect that the guest a foreign national who suffered a theft of a sum of Rs. 150/- should be summoned or produced subsequently, when the enquiry is done two months later for proving that the said sum was stolen. It is not disputed before me that the complaint as lodged by the guest is on record.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also produced on record the office order in terms of which the General Manager is authorized to initiate departmental enquiry in respect of employees falling within a scale of Rs. 300-400. I find from the perusal of the impugned order as well as the pleadings on record that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner himself was examined. He had an opportunity to cross-examine the other witnesses. As regards the transfer of the statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry to the enquiry file, it is not disputed that the petitioner got the opportunity of cross-examining the said witnesses, who were actually produced and made available during the enquiry for cross-examination. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner on this account.

9. As regards the objection of the petitioner that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner, I find that in this case apart from the complaint and confessional statement of the petitioner, there were no other documents and the petitioner, was duly notified that he could inspect the same at the office of the personnel Manager.

10. Coming to the question of disproportioality of punishment, I find that the learned Labour court has taken note of judicial pronouncements as noted in para 7 of the order dated 30.11.1999. In may view, it is of critical importance especially in the hospitality industry that the guests who frequent and stay at hotels, have apart from comfort, a sense of reassurance that their personal effects and money while staying at the hotel, is safe and secure. Any violation or loss of trust in such circumstances, apart from the individual loss to guests can also result in sallying the image of the country. The question is not merely of the amount that was stolen. I do not find any ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed.