G.Sudhakar, Warangal District vs Labour, Employment Training ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4679 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                   WRIT PETITION NO.12194 OF 2004


                                    ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ more particularly one

in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings

No.P3/104(438)/82.HNK, dt.17.08.1982 in imposing the punishment

of deferment of increments for a period of 4 years which shall have

effect on future increments, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and

consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders

as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the 2nd respondent

Corporation on 23.07.1975. While he was conducting bus No.AAZ

1198 on route Bollikunta on 12.05.1982, there was a check and it was

found that the petitioner has failed to issue tickets to 3 individual

passengers who boarded his bus at Mamnoor and found alighting

without tickets at Rangashaipet, i.e., ex-stages 9 to 7, in spite of

collecting the requisite fare of Rs.0.40 ps., each. Therefore, a charge

memo was issued to the petitioner levelling the following 3 charges:

(1) For having failed to complete the ticket issues before arrival of the next stage i.e., Stage No.7 (Rangashaipet) which is a misconduct U/R 28(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963;

W.P.No.12194 of 2004

(2) For having failed to issue tickets to 3 individual passengers in spite of collecting the requisite fare of Rs.0.40 ps. each, who boarded his bus at Mamnoor and found alighting without tickets at Rangashaipet ex.stages 9 to 7, which is a misconduct U/R 28(vi)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963;

(3) For having failed to close the tray numbers of all denominations against stages 9 to 7, which is misconduct U/R 28(xxv) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963.

The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, the 2nd respondent

was not satisfied with the same and imposed the punishment of

postponement of annual increments which fall next due for a period of

4 years which shall also have effect on future increments by order

dt.17.08.1982. By the very same order, a show-cause notice was also

issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the suspension period

should not be treated as 'not on duty', failing which it will be

considered that the petitioner has no explanation to offer and final

orders would be passed based on the evidence available on record.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an Appeal which was

rejected and thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application. The

said application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a

dispute before the Labour Court challenging the enquiry and also he

preferred an Appeal to the Government, which was disposed of

confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

Against the order of punishment, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Sri Anurag Bajpai, learned counsel representing Smt. K.

Udayasri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the W.P.No.12194 of 2004

enquiry was conducted, the petitioner was not supplied with the

enquiry report, but punishment of stoppage of 4 increments with

future effect has been imposed, which is in gross violation of the

principles of natural justice. Further, he also submitted that the

punishment of stoppage of 4 increments with future effect is a major

punishment and is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges

levelled against the petitioner.

4. Ms. Mohd. Abdul Quddus, learned counsel representing Sri

B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other

hand, supported the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted

that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and the

punishment awarded was a minor punishment and therefore, there was

no requirement to supply copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union

of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan1, wherein it was held

that the delinquent employee is entitled to copy of enquiry report

submitted by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority and to

make representation against it and non-furnishing of the report to the

delinquent would be violative of principles of natural justice rendering

the final order invalid.

(1991) 1 SCC 588 W.P.No.12194 of 2004

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that whether it is a minor or major

punishment, principles of natural justice require that the enquiry

report should be provided to the delinquent employee in order to

enable him to raise objections or make representation against the

enquiry report. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of

India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1 supra), non-supply of

the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and

vitiates the final order of punishment. In paras 15 to 19, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"15. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by the Forty-second Amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be W.P.No.12194 of 2004

inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position.

16. At the hearing some argument had been advanced on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution, namely, that in one set of cases arising out of disciplinary proceedings furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report would be insisted upon while in the other it would not be. This argument has no foundation inasmuch as where the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer there is no report. He becomes the first assessing authority to consider the evidence directly for finding out whether the delinquent is guilty and liable to be punished. Even otherwise, the inquiries which are directly handled by the disciplinary authority and those which are allowed to be handled by the Inquiry Officer can easily be classified into two separate groups -- one, where there is no inquiry report on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer and inquiries where there is a report on account of the fact that an officer other than the disciplinary authority has been constituted as the Inquiry Officer. That itself would be a reasonable classification keeping away the application of Article 14 of the Constitution.

17. There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty-second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-Judge bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground.

W.P.No.12194 of 2004

18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter.

19. On the basis of this conclusion, the appeals are dismissed and the disciplinary action in every case is set aside. There shall be no order for costs. We would clarify that this decision may not preclude the disciplinary authority from revising the proceeding and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the inquiry report in cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment."

7. Since facts and circumstances in this case are also similar,

respectfully following the same, this Court holds that the punishment

order passed by the respondents consequent to the enquiry report, is

null and void.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition

shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

Date: 30.12.2021 Svv