Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Telco Limited (Now Known As Tata ... vs G.C. Patnayak on 31 January, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 310 of 2020
---------
M/s. Telco Limited (now Known as Tata Motors Limited),
having its office and works at Telco Company, P.O. & P.S.
Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, through
its Authorized Signatory Sri Rajesh Kumar Das, S/o Late P.N.
Das, General Manager Legal Services, P.O. & P.S. Telco,
District Singhbhum (East), Town Jamshedpur
... ... Appellant
Versus
G.C. Patnayak, S/o Late G.N. Patnayak, R/o Qr. No. K/23/5,
Telco Colony, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District
East Singhbhum ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : None
---------
10/31.01.2024 Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent in
spite of valid service of notice as enumerated in the
supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant.
This appeal is directed against the order dated
17.08.2020 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4707 of 2013, whereby the
matter was remitted back to the respondent/Management for
taking a fresh decision on the point of quantum of
punishment and to consider for inflicting any other
punishment other than dismissal from service, considering
the nature of the offence.
Briefly stated the facts reveal that the respondent (writ
petitioner) was employed by the appellant management on
28.02.1974. It has been stated that on 22.07.1999, when the
respondent was in 'B' Shift duty, he was taking tea and
snacks during duty hours and at that point of time he was
having some washers, one small drill and tap which he
slipped into his pocket and while going out of the gate he was
searched by the security staff and the materials were
recovered from his possession. On 20.08.1999, the
respondent was issued a charge sheet for theft, fraud and
dishonesty in connection with the company's property and for
corrupt practices to which a reply was submitted by the
respondent on 30.08.1999 stating therein that the materials
were kept with him due to inadvertence and there was no
intention on his part to steal those materials. An Enquiry
Officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry. After the inquiry
report was submitted in which the respondent was found
guilty of the charges levelled against him and ultimately the
same resulted in the dismissal of the respondent. The
respondent after his dismissal had raised an industrial
dispute before the appropriate government which was referred
for adjudication before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. The
term of reference was as follows:
"Whether the dismissal of G.C. Patnayak by the
management of M/s. Telco Ltd., is justified ? If not, what
relief he is entitled to ?"
The said reference case being registered as Reference
Case No. 29/2002 finally culminated in an award being
passed on 03.08.2012 by the learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Jamshedpur wherein the reference was
answered in favour of the Management and against the
concerned workman, holding therein "the dismissal of the
workman by the management is not harsh and strikingly
disproportionate, and thus, the dismissal order is justified
and the concerned workman Mr. Patnayak is not entitled to
get any benefits."
Being aggrieved with the award dated 03.08.2012
passed in Reference Case No. 29/2002 the respondent herein
had preferred a writ application being W.P.(L) No. 4707 of
2013 which was disposed of on 17.08.2020, wherein it was
held as follows:
"11. Taking into consideration that petitioner
has rendered 25 years of long and unblemished
service and his service record was clean and he was
victimized by the Management and was dismissed
from service, the Award dated 03.08.2012, passed by
the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in
Ref. Case No. 29 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent
Management for taking a fresh decision on the point of
quantum of punishment and to consider for inflicting
any other punishment, other than dismissal from
service considering the nature of the offence."
Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
management-appellant has submitted that the impugned
order dated 17.08.2020 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4707 of 2013 is
ambiguous to the effect that though it has been held by the
learned Single Judge that the inquiry conducted was fair and
proper but at the same time the learned Single Judge has
come to a conclusion that in spite of putting in 25 years of
unblemished service the respondent-workman has been
victimized by the Management and has been dismissed from
service. It has further been submitted that though the matter
was remanded back to the respondent-management to take a
fresh decision on the quantum of punishment and to inflict
any other punishment, other than dismissal from service, the
learned Single Judge could have very well decided the issue
instead of remanding the matter back to the Management.
Learned counsel further submits that the theft committed by
the respondent-workman has been proved in the enquiry
proceeding and has also been upheld by the learned Labour
Court and since the conduct of the respondent-workman
amounts to the employer losing faith on the employee, the
punishment of dismissal which was passed by the
management should not have been interfered with by the
learned Single Judge. In course of her submission learned
counsel for the appellant has referred to the case of
"Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited versus M.
Mani" reported in (2018) 1 SCC 285 and "The Management of
Telco versus K.C. Bandyopadhyaya" reported in [2018 (1) JCR
159 (Jhr)].
The charge which was levelled against the respondent-
workman was with respect to theft of certain articles
belonging to the company and which was recovered from his
possession. There appears to be no doubt of the fact about
the inquiry having been conducted in a fair and proper
manner and the remand which have been made by the
learned Single Judge is only with respect to the quantum of
punishment as it has been held that the same is severe
considering the fact regarding the nature of charge as well as
the fact that the respondent-workman had put in 25 years of
unblemished service.
In this context, reference may be made to the case of
"Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited versus M.
Mani"(supra) wherein it has been held as follows:
"24. Now coming to the order of writ court (Single Judge)
though, in our opinion, the Single Judge rightly held the
departmental enquiry as being legal and proper but
committed an error in remanding the case to the Labour
Court without precisely saying as to what the Labour Court
has to decide after remand and why writ court cannot
decide such issues in the writ petition. We find that the
Single Judge, in concluded paragraph of the order,
remanded the whole case afresh for its decision on merits.
25. In our considered view, the Single Judge (writ court)
having held the enquiry to be legal and proper instead of
remanding the case to the Labour Court should have
himself examined the short question which had survived for
consideration in the writ petition, namely, whether the
punishment of dismissal was commensurate with the
charges or it required any interference by the Court under
Section 11-A of the Act.
26. In other words, the remand to the Labour Court in
this case by the Single Judge was not called for. It would
have become necessary, if the Single Judge had come to a
conclusion that the departmental enquiry is illegal. In such
situation, the question would have arisen as to whether the
employer should now be given an opportunity to prove the
charge before the Labour Court on merits by adducing
evidence provided such opportunity had been asked for in
any form by the employer (see Shankar Chakravarti v.
Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.).
27. However, this occasion did not arise because, as
observed supra, the enquiry was held legal and proper by
the Labour Court and Single Judge.
28. Now coming to the legality of the impugned
judgment, in our considered opinion, there was absolutely
no justification on the part of the Division Bench to have
allowed the appeals of the respondents and restored the
order of the Labour Court by setting aside the dismissal
order. The Division Bench, in our view, did not take note of
correct legal position, which we have discussed above.
29. In our opinion, this is a clear case where the
departmental enquiry was held legal and proper. We also,
on going through the record of the case, hold that the
departmental enquiry was properly held and was,
therefore, legal and proper. So far as the quantum of
punishment imposed on the respondents is concerned,
having regard to the nature of charge which stood proved in
the enquiry, in our view, the order of dismissal from service
was the appropriate punishment. It was commensurate
with the charge.
30. An act of theft committed by an employee while on
duty is a serious charge. This charge once proved in
enquiry, the employer is justified in dismissing the
employee from service."
In the case of "The Management of Telco versus K.C.
Bandhopadhyaya" (supra) consideration was being made to a
case of theft and while relying on various pronouncements of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was concluded thus:
"6. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of
Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh,
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187, in paragraph no.18 as under:
"18. In the instant case, the
misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent
employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has
considered the punishment that may be awarded
to the delinquent employees who misappropriated
the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be
considered. This Court in a catena of judgments
held that the loss of confidence is the primary
factor and not the amount of money
misappropriated and that the sympathy or
generosity cannot be a factor which is
impermissible in law. When an employee is found
guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the
Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the
Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an
employee and awarding punishment of dismissal.
In such cases, there is no place for generosity or
misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial
forums and interfering therefore with the quantum
of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC
v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this
judgment among others. Examination of the
passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum
was collected was also not essential. In our view,
possession of the said excess sum of money on the
part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a
misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the
learned Judges of the High Court misdirected
themselves in insisting on the evidence of the
passengers which is wholly not essential. This
apart, the respondent did not have any
explanation for having carried the said excess
amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him
guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the
respondent was not fit to be retained as a
conductor because such action or inaction of his
was bound to result in financial loss to the
appellant irrespective of the quantum."
(Emphasis supplied)
It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case
of U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, reported in 2010 (3)
JCR 138 (SC) : (2010) 6 SCC 555, in paragraph No. 23 as
under:
"23. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh and U.P. SRTC v.
Vinod Kumar this Court held that the punishment
should always be proportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct. However, in a case of corruption /
misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal."
(Emphasis supplied)
It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case
of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013)
4 SCC 301, in paragraphs No. 25 and 26 as under:
"25. In Municipal Committee,
Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari this Court
held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4)
"4. ...... In a case of such nature--indeed, in
cases involving corruption--there cannot be any
other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy
shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and
opposed to public interest. The amount
misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act
of misappropriation that is relevant."
26. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh this Court
held that the punishment should always be
proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
However, in a case of corruption, the only
punishment is dismissal. Similar view has been
reiterated in U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar and U.P.
SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma."
(Emphasis supplied)
It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the
case of Rajasthan SRTC and another v. Bajrang Lal,
reported in 2014 (3) JCR 316 (SC) : (2014) 4 SCC 693, in
paragraphs No. 21 and 22 as under:
"21. As regards the question of disproportionate
punishment is concerned, the issue is no more res
integra. In U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, it
was held as under: (SCC p. 561, para 22)
"22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v.
Krishnan Behari this Court held as under: (SCC p.
715, para 4)
'4. ...... In a case of such nature--indeed, in
cases involving corruption--there cannot be any
other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy
shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and
opposed to public interest. The amount
misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act
of misappropriation that is relevant.'
Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston
& Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo
Chaudhary, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-
op. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Sahakari Noukarara
Sangha, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti and
Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma."
22. In view of the above, the contention raised on
behalf of the respondent employee, that the punishment
of removal from service is disproportionate to the
delinquency is not worth acceptance. The only
punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is
dismissal from service." (Emphasis supplied)
It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme court
in the case of Diwan Singh v. LIC others, reported in
(2015) 2 JCR 101 (SC) : (2015) 2 SCC 341, as under:
"8. As far as argument relating to quantum of
punishment, as modified by the High Court, which
results in consequential forfeiture of pensionary benefits
in view of Rule 23, quoted above, is concerned, we do
not find the punishment to be harsh or disproportionate
to the guilt, in view of the nature of the charge of which
the appellant is found guilty in the present case. Time
and again, this Court has consistently held that in such
matters no sympathy should be shown by the courts.
9. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh, this Court, in para
18 of the judgment has expressed the views on this
point as under: (SCC p. 193)
"18. In the instant case, the misappropriation
of the funds by the delinquent employee was only
Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the
punishment that may be awarded to the
delinquent employees who misappropriated the
funds of the Corporation and the factors to be
considered. This Court in a catena of judgments
held that the loss of confidence is the primary
factor and not the amount of money
misappropriated and that the sympathy or
generosity cannot be a factor which is
impermissible in law. When an employee is found
guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the
Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the
Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an
employee and awarding punishment of dismissal.
In such cases, there is no place for generosity or
misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial
forums and interfering therefore with the quantum
of punishment."
10. In Karnataka SRTC v. A.T. Mane in which
unaccounted amount was only Rs 93 this Court
expressed its opinion in para 12 as under: (SCC p. 259)
"12. Coming to the question of quantum of
punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that
it is not the amount of money misappropriated that
becomes a primary factor for awarding
punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of
confidence which is the primary factor to be taken
into consideration. In our opinion, when a person
is found guilty of misappropriating the
corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the
corporation losing confidence or faith in such a
person and awarding a punishment of dismissal."
11. In Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v.
State of Maharashtra, this Court has made following
observations in para 25 of the judgment: (SCC p. 654)
"25. ...... In the present day scenario,
corruption has been treated to have the
potentiality of corroding the marrows of the
economy. There are cases where the amount
is small, and in certain cases, it is extremely
high. The gravity of the offence in such a
case, in our considered opinion, is not to be
adjudged on the bedrock of the quantum of
bribe. An attitude to abuse the official
position to extend favour in lieu of benefit is
a crime against the collective and an
anathema to the basic tenets of democracy,
for it erodes the faith of the people in the
system. It creates an incurable concavity in
the rule of law."
12. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, this
Court, following Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh
v. Krishnan Behari, has opined that in cases involving
corruption there cannot be any other punishment than
dismissal. It has been further held that any sympathy
shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed
to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be
small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is
relevant. In the said case (Rajasthan SRTC), the
respondent employee was awarded punishment of
removal from service. In the present case it is
compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for
respondents submitted that on an earlier occasion, the
appellant was awarded a minor punishment for his
misconduct, regarding defalcation of stamps. And now
he is found guilty for the second time."
7. In view of the aforesaid decisions, whenever any
theft or misappropriation of the amount or unauthorizedly any
employee is indulging into such type of activities, quantum of
punishment of dismissal cannot be labelled as shocking and
disproportionate punishment."
Though at a first glance the charge against the
respondent-workman would seem to be not a grave charge
but on an in-depth analysis it would imply that theft of
articles belonging to the company has far reaching
consequences if the respondent workman is allowed to
continue in service and a lenient punishment is awarded to
him. The charges levelled against the respondent-workman in
fact leads to eroding the confidence of the employer over the
concerned employee and such misconduct would affect the
employer-employee relationship as taking back such
employee in service after imposing a punishment other than
dismissal cannot restore the faith which the employer must
have reposed on the employee prior to he being charged with
the offence of theft. In fact, as held in "Management of Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited" (supra) an act of theft committed by
an employee while on duty is a serious charge and this charge
once proved in an inquiry the employer is justified in
dismissing the employee from service.
The punishment of dismissal of the respondent-
workman is in commensuration with the act of misconduct
alleged and proved against him with respect to stealing the
company articles which were recovered from his possession.
Merely, on account of the fact that the respondent-workman
had put in 25 years of unblemished service would not act as a
spanner for the management to pass an order of dismissal
against him.
In view of the fact that the inquiry is held to be just and
proper and the punishment of dismissal in the facts and
circumstances of the case was rightly passed, there was no
question of reconsideration of the order of dismissal from
service by the management. The learned Single Judge had
committed an error in remanding the matter back to the
management for passing a fresh order of punishment other
than an order of dismissal considering the long and
unblemished service put in by the respondent-workman and
in view of the discussions made hereinabove, we hereby set
aside the order dated 17.08.2020 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4707
of 2013.
This appeal is allowed.
Let a copy of the track record which in fact
substantiates the averments made in the supplementary
affidavit by the appellant regarding service of notice to the
respondent and submitted at the Bar by the learned counsel
for the appellant be kept on the record.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Alok/-
