Telangana High Court
The Divisional Manager, vs D. Purushotham on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.627 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
26.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.15805 of 2001 by the learned
Single Judge.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent/employee in the present appeal was appointed as
a Cleaner on 09.01.1981. He was charge sheeted on
07.11.1989 for manhandling one M.R.L. Sharma, AFM,
Bhadrachalam while he was on duty on 04.11.1989. It was
also alleged that he entered into the depot in a drunken
condition. A reply was filed to the charge sheet and the
disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the reply of the
employee, appointed an enquiry officer.
The undisputed facts further reveal that the enquiry
officer submitted report holding the workman guilty of the
misconduct and a show cause notice was also issued and
thereafter, an order of termination was passed on 12.08.1991.
The employee thereafter raised a dispute i.e., I.D.No.98 of
1992 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(for short, "the Act") and the Labour Court though held the
enquiry to be proper in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 11A of the Act, however as the punishment was
disproportionately shocking to the guilt of the employee,
passed an order of reinstatement into service with continuity
in service without back wages and the punishment of
deferment of three annual increments with cumulative effect
was inflicted upon him. The respondent/employee being
aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, preferred a writ
petition and the learned Single Judge has passed an order
moderating the punishment to that of deferment of three
annual increments without cumulative effect. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6
read as under:
"5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having
considered the rival contentions of both the counsel and in
considered view of this Court, the Enquiry Officer, on
appreciation of evidence available on record, found that the
petitioner had committed the misconduct of manhandling
the superior for not granting leave, in a drunken state. But
the Enquiry Officer has not considered the statement of the
petitioner and his cross-examination of witnesses and
brushing aside the same, are found to be illegal. However,
the Labour Court on mere surmises and conjectures found
that the charges were proved in the enquiry against the
petitioner. The Labour Court, having exercised the power
under Section 11-A of the Act, considering the long length
of service of the petitioner and his financial sufferings
during the period which he was out of employment, granted
reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service but
without back wages and deferment of three annual
increments with cumulative effect. But, insofar as imposing
punishment of deferment of three annual increments is
concerned, it is disproportionate to the proved misconduct
and amounts to inflicting serious punishment on the
petitioner, which has an affect on the future pay and
retirement benefits.
6. This Court, by an order dated 16.08.1999 passed in
Writ Petition No.4947 of 1999, granted notional increments
to the petitioner and thereby the pay of the petitioner was
fixed by giving notional increments. During the pendency of
the writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation. Having considered the
same and to meet the ends of justice, the award to the
extent of 'deferment of three annual increments with
cumulative effect' is modified as 'deferment of three annual
increments without cumulative effect', by upholding the
award of the Labour Court in all other aspects. The
respondents are also directed to settle the terminal benefits
of the petitioner, if not already settled, within two (2)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
The undisputed facts reveal that the employee was not
permitted to cross-examine the witnesses during the
departmental enquiry. The statement of the employee was
not considered by the enquiry officer. In those circumstances,
the learned Single Judge has interfered in the matter.
In the considered opinion of this Court, denial of
opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses is a serious
lapse in a departmental enquiry, as it is violative of principles
of natural justice and fair play and therefore, the learned
Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition partly.
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
16.12.2021
ES
