Sanjay Kumar vs The Union Of India & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 3709 Del

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Judgment reserved on : 25th July, 2017
                                   Date of decision : 28th July, 2017

W.P.(C) 6293/2017 & CM APPL. 26075/2017
SANJAY KUMAR                                          ..... Petitioner

                           Through      Mr. Girdhari Singh, Adv.

                           versus

THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR                              ..... Respondent

                           Through      Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj,
                                        CGSC with Mr. Sahaj Garg,
                                        Adv. for R1/UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
                              JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

CM APPL. 26075/2017

This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner / applicant

Sh. Sanjay Kumar seeking exemption from filing certified copies of

the orders and dim annexures.

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application

is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6293/2017

1. The petitioner has assailed the impugned Award dated

04.01.2017 of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No.-II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi - 110032 in I.D.

No. 1/12 whereby the reference of the Central Government of the

Ministry of Labour sent Letter No. 11012/02/2011(IR(CM-I) dated

20.12.2011 : -

"Whether the action of the management of JAC Air Service Pvt. Ltd. in termination the service of Sanjay Kumar is legal and justified? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

was answered against the workman / the petitioner herein in

favour of the Management / the respondent.

2. During the course of the proceedings before the Presiding

Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. -II,

Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi - 110032, the following issues

were framed : -

"1. Whether the action of the management of JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the service of Sh. Sanjay Kumar is legal and justified? If so its effect?

2. To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. The workman / the petitioner herein through his Statement of

Claim filed on 07.08.2013 sought reinstatement of his services with

continuity of his previous service alongwith full backwages and other

consequential reliefs and the Management / the respondent herein on

the other hand i.e. M/s. JAC Air Services Pvt. Ltd., arrayed as

respondent no. 2, to the present petition prayed for dismissal of the

Statement of Claim of the workman / the petitioner herein.

4. The evidence led in relation to Issue No. 1 by the Management /

the respondent herein brought forth through the testimony of the

petitioner himself examined as WW1 that an incident of theft took

place on 03.08.2008 during the flight check operation for which the

memo was issued to the workman / the petitioner herein and an

inquiry was held in which the workman / the petitioner herein

participated and after the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority

terminated the services of the workman / the petitioner herein which

letter of termination was received by the workman / the petitioner

herein, who despite the same filed no appeal against his termination.

The workman / the petitioner herein also admitted in his cross-

examination that he had filed no objection against the manner of the

conduct of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. He further stated that no

copy of the report of the inquiry was supplied to him but stated that he

does not apply for the copy of the inquiry report till the date of his

testimony.

5. Mr. K.J. Ratwani examined as MW1 on behalf of the

Management before the Presiding Officer, Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No.-II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi -

110032 categorically stated that the inquiry was conducted in a proper

manner and that the principles of the natural justice had been

followed. Despite cross-examination conducted on behalf of the

workman / the petitioner herein by his Presenting Officer, there is no

substantial query put to MW1 on behalf of the workman / the

petitioner herein to challenge the veracity of the testimony of MW1.

6. It is essential to advert to the inquiry proceedings conducted on

29.08.2008 at FLY LAC Logistics 516, 517 Vishal Tower District

Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi where the workman / the petitioner

herein and the Presenting Officer of the Management / the respondent

no. 2 were present and the proceedings conducted are re-produced

hereinbelow : -

"IO What you know about your charge sheet.

Whether you have committed theft from Dell and

caught hold ?

Mr. Sanjay Sir, I am working in this field from the last two

years. These was a shipment of eight packets,

various other person were also working in our

company, meanwhile Mr. Leela Ram Assistant

Security Officer came, he unwrapped the tape

and put the T shirt on the packet and took the

photographs. He told me that I was committing

theft from the packet and then he took me to the

DIAL / AAI Security officer and directed me to

write a statement in this respect. I wrote my

statement and handed over the same to him. He

also took away my entry card by which I used to

make my entry.

Mr. Kaushikji Sanjay took out T Shirt form the packet, while

performing his duty. He was caught red handed

by the security. The report of which has been

given by them to the company vide letter No.

DIAL / CGT / SEC / IND / 206/2008 / 557 dated

5.8.2008. Secondly Sanjay has also accepted his

guilt of theft in his statement. From which it is

proved that he tried to commit theft and therefore

the charge levelled against him is proved.

IO Whether you want to say anything in respect of

your statement given by you on 29.8.2008.

Mr. Sanjay          No.

Mr. Satrughan       They said that Sanjay is a good boy, but on

3.8.2008 when he was checking the TG Airline

flight, he took out one T shirt from the packet

and wore the same, I caught him at that time only

and informed A/SO Leela Ram, who took further

action for the same.

Mr. Kaushik         Sh. Satrudhan Ji you were checking TG Flight

                    with     Sanjay   Loader    on    3.8.2008,        You

apprehended Sanjay while committing theft of T

Shirt.

Mr. Satrugnan Yes. I caught him red handed.

Mr. Kaushik Mr. Sanjay you had written and stated in enquiry

dated 29.8.08 I was wrapping tape on the packet

and Leela Ram put the T Shirt on the packet and

took photograph and levelled the allegations of

theft on me but Mr. Satrughan stated that you

have committed theft, whether you accept the

same.

Mr. Sanjay Yes, I took out the shirt, but in future I will not

commit such act, I may be excused.

Sd/-                            Sd/-                      Sd/-
12.9.2008 "

7. In the inquiry proceedings the workman / the petitioner herein

initially stated that there was a shipment of eight packets and Mr.

Leela Ram Assistant Security Officer came and had unwrapped the

tape and put the T Shirt on the packet and had taken the photographs

and had told him that he had committed theft and he took the

workman / the petitioner herein to DIAL / AAI Security Officer and

had directed him to write a statement in this respect and that the

workman / the petitioner herein had written his statement and had

handed over the same to him. On further query by the Presenting

Officer for the respondent no. 2 in the inquiry proceedings, it was

stated by the workman / the petitioner herein that he took out the

T Shirt but in future he would not commit such act and that he

may be excused.

8. The letter dated 04.08.2008 of the petitioner filed alongwith

the petition also indicates that he did take out the T Shirt

intentionally and that he admitted his fault in relation thereto.

9. During the course of the present proceedings, learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that such admission of guilt of the

petitioner on 04.08.2008 was under coercion. However, the same does

not suffice to explain as to why no appeal was filed by the petitioner

against his termination and it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner

did not challenge the conduct of the inquiry proceedings in any

manner and there is nothing to bring forth that the inquiry had not

been conducted fairly.

10. Rather the inquiry proceedings and the cross-examination

conducted before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No. -II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi - 110032 bring

forth categorically that the incident of the theft of a T Shirt which had

been stolen by the workman / the petitioner herein who as per his

explanation dated 04.08.2008 had suddenly been overcome by greed

had taken place on 03.08.2008 during the flight check operation.

11. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no infirmity in

the findings of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No. -II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi - 110032 in

relation to Issue No. 1 framed which brings forth that there was no

illegality committed by respondent no. 2 in terminating the services of

Mr. Sanjay Kumar / the workman / the petitioner herein.

12. As regards Issue No. 2, which related to the aspect as to what

relief the workman / the petitioner herein was entitled to, it is apparent

that as the termination of the services of the workman / the petitioner

by the respondent no. 2 has been held to be justified, coupled with the

factum that the petitioner had been found committing theft of a T Shirt

belonging to the respondent no. 2 and though it may have been a theft

of a trivial kind, the same was a material misconduct by the petitioner

in discharge of his duties and thus it is apparent that he is not entitled

to any relief. Thus there is no infirmity in the impugned Award dated

04.01.2017 of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

Tribunal No. -II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi - 110032 in

I.D. No. 1/12 whereby Issue No. 2 was decided against the workman /

the petitioner herein answering the reference accordingly.

13. The totality of the circumstances brought forth on a bare perusal

of the petition and the copies of the annexures thereto which include

the copy of the inquiry proceedings, copy of letter dated 04.08.2008

admittedly signed by the workman / the petitioner herein and the

testimony of WW1 / the petitioner herein and the testimony of MW1

Mr. K.J. Ratwani, the Executive Director of the respondent no.2

before the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No.-II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi - 110032 in I.D. No.

1/12 suffice to bring forth that there is no infirmity in the impugned

Award dated 04.01.2017 of the Presiding Officer, Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. -II, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi -

110032 in I.D. No. 1/12 and thus there is no ground to proceed with

the petition in any manner.

14. It is thus not considered to issue any notice of the petition and

the W.P.(C) 6293/2017 is thus dismissed.

ANU MALHOTRA, J th JULY 28 , 2017 mk