Delhi High Court
Shri Sagar (Through Lrs) vs Mcd And Another on 22 October, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 12557/2009
% Date of Decision: 22nd OCTOBER, 2009
# SHRI SAGAR (THROUGH LRs)
.....PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ M.C.D. AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the
judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
CM No. 13092/2009
Delay of three and a half months in refiling of the petition is
condoned.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
WP(C) No. 12557/2009
The legal heirs of the deceased workman late Sagar have filed this
writ petition seeking to challenge an industrial award dated 30.09.2008 in
ID No. 243 of 1988/53 of 1995 affirming the dismissal of the workman by
the management of the respondent MCD.
2. The deceased workman, late Sagar was employed as a Beldar in
MCD w.e.f. 12.07.1977. He was involved in a criminal case of attempt to
murder and a FIR under Section 307/452/342/34 IPC was registered
against him with Police Station Alipur on 07.02.1982. He started
remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 08.02.1982. While he was absent from
duty, he was arrested by the Police in the aforementioned criminal case
on 08.04.1982. He remained in custody from 08.04.1982 to 02.07.1982.
The deceased workman was served with a charge sheet. Four charges
were labelled against him. The first charge was for his unauthorized
absence from 07.02.1982 to 09.08.1982. The second charge was in
relation to his arrest and for his remaining in Police custody from
08.04.1982 to 02.07.1982 in a criminal case vide FIR No. 40 dated
07.02.1982 under Section 307/452/342/34 IPC, PS Alipur. The third
charge was that he had failed to report the fact of his arrest to his
Department and concealed this fact deliberately. The fourth charge
was that he neither joined the duty during the period from 07.02.1982 to
07.04.1982 which was the period before his arrest on 08.04.1982 despite
communication sent by the respondent vide letters dated 09.02.1982 and
03.03.1982.
3 A departmental inquiry into the above charges was held against the
deceased workman in which he was found guilty of all these charges.
After considering the Inquiry Report and on taking note of the conduct of
the deceased workman, the respondent management vide order dated
28.04.2006 decided to remove the deceased workman from its service
with a stipulation that the said removal shall not be a disqualification for
his future employment.
4. The deceased workman being dissatisfied with his removal from the
service of the respondent had raised an industrial dispute which was
referred by the appropriate Government in the Government of NCT of
Delhi for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court on scrutiny
of the evidence produced by the parties before it, vide order dated
27.09.2008 held that the departmental inquiry conducted against the
deceased workman was in conformity with the principles of natural
justice and no fault could be found with the same. Consequent thereto,
the Court below vide impugned award dated 30.09.2008 has held that
the removal of the deceased workman from the service of the respondent
was justified in view of the charges proved against him.
5. Mr. Lalwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heirs
of the deceased workman contends that the punishment of removal from
service awarded by the employer is disproportionate to the charges
proved against the deceased workman. I am not impressed with this
argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is not disputed that
the deceased workman was arrested in a criminal case and that he
remained in police custody w.e.f. 08.04.1982 to 02.07.1982. It is also not
disputed that the deceased workman had not informed the employer
about the registration of the FIR against him or the fact of his arrest by
the Police. Withholding of information of registration of FIR against him
by the deceased workman amounts to a misconduct within the meaning
of Rule 3(a) and Rule 18(1)(i) of Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
Undertaking Service (Conduct) Rules, 1970 and he was rightly dealt with
by the respondent under Section 95 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the punishment of removal from service
awarded to the deceased workman by the respondent was
commensurate with the charges of misconduct proved against him in the
inquiry. The said punishment does not call for any interference by this
Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition
which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
OCTOBER 22, 2009, ma S.N.AGGARWAL, J
