Telangana High Court
M.K. Kumar vs Tsrtc on 22 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.33250 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Certiorari
to quash the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal, i.e., Labour
Court-III, Hyderabad dt.16.09.2021 in I.D.No.06 of 2020 as illegal and
arbitrary for not granting the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner into
service along with consequential benefits and to consequently direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pass such other
order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent
Corporation on 22.05.2002. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent
from duty from 01.07.2018 to 30.07.2018. According to the petitioner,
he was on sick leave prior to the said period and even after the expiry of
the said period, when he did not recover, he was under treatment of a
private hospital and after obtaining fitness certificate on 30.07.2018, he
appeared before the disciplinary authority along with a joining report. It
is submitted that on the very same day, he was issued a charge sheet for
unauthorised absence of 30 days from 01.07.2018 to 30.07.2018 and
that the petitioner had submitted his explanation that he was earlier on
sick leave and that he was under treatment and after obtaining fitness
certificate, he is attending to duty. But, taking the same to be his
explanation to the charge sheet, an enquiry officer was appointed on the
very same day and the enquiry was also conducted and concluded on the
very same day at 18:45 hours and thereafter, the enquiry report was
submitted to the Disciplinary Authority on 06.08.2018. The petitioner
submitted his comments or objections to the enquiry report and
thereafter, a show-cause notice dt.27.09.2018 was issued calling upon
the petitioner to submit his explanation to the proposed punishment of
removal from service. However, observing that no explanation was
submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of removal from service
was passed on 12.11.2018. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the
Divisional Manager, Nalgonda, Review to the Regional Manager and
mercy petition to the Executive Director, but all of them have been
rejected and the petitioner filed I.D.No.6 of 2020 before the Industrial
Tribunal challenging the validity of the domestic enquiry and also the
punishment of removal from service. The Tribunal, vide orders
dt.16.09.2021 has upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry, but
modified the punishment to compulsory retirement. Challenging the
same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been working sincerely all along and only due to his illness, the
petitioner could not attend to his duties in the months of June and July,
2018. He submitted that he had taken treatment from RTC hospital at
Tarnaka during the month of June, 2018 and since he was not well even
in the month of July, 2018, he was under treatment of a private hospital
and had appeared for joining his duty along with a fitness certificate on
30.07.2018. He submitted that on the very same day, he was served with
the charge sheet to which the petitioner submitted his explanation with
the hope that it would be considered and a lenient view would be taken
thereon but instead, the authorities have appointed an enquiry officer
and the enquiry was also conducted on the very same day. He submits
that the hurry in which the enquiry was conducted is in clear violation of
principles of natural justice. He submitted that the person who has given
the report about the absenteeism of the petitioner was examined as a
witness of the management, but the petitioner was not given an
opportunity to cross-examine him. He submitted that there is a reference
to some documents given along with the charge sheet, but the petitioner
was not given any opportunity to make his submissions on the same and
his statement was also recorded on the very same day without giving
any time for preparation. Therefore, according to him, the enquiry is not
only in violation of principles of natural justice but also in violation of
the Rules. He submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the facts in
proper perspective but has only modified the punishment of removal
from service to that of the compulsory retirement. The learned counsel
for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner
of Police and others 1 for the proposition that where there is no legal
evidence for a conclusion to be arrived at in an enquiry, then it would be
a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
supported the impugned order of removal from service and also the
order of modifying the punishment order to compulsory retirement by
the Tribunal. He submitted that the respondents have followed all due
procedure in conducting the enquiry and it was the petitioner who has
submitted his explanation on the very same day of receipt of the charge
(1999) SCC (LS) 429
sheet and in accordance with the rules, the enquiry officer was appointed
and the enquiry was conducted. It is submitted that the Tribunal, after
taking all the above facts into consideration, has upheld the validity of
the domestic enquiry and after taking into consideration the health
condition of the petitioner only, the appellate authority has modified the
order of removal from service to compulsory retirement and therefore,
there was no reason or basis for interference.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that in the charge sheet, the respondents have given the
details of the period of unauthorised absence. The proforma also
contained the period of absence on the earlier occasions and there does
not seem to be any such occasion where the petitioner was absent
unauthorisedly. The only period of absence is mentioned as 30 days, i.e.,
from 01.07.2018 to 30.07.2018. It may be a ground for issuance of
charge sheet to the petitioner. However, the respondents ought to have
given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation.
The respondents seem to have considered the explanation given on the
very same day and without giving any time for him to retrospect, has
appointed the enquiry officer and has also conducted the enquiry. This
hurry in conducting the enquiry on the very same day smacks of
arbitrariness and bias against the petitioner. The enquiry report was also
submitted within a period of six days thereafter and the show-cause
notice was issued for removal from service thereafter. All these facts
and circumstances go to demonstrate that the enquiry was not conducted
in a proper manner in accordance with principles of natural justice.
Further, the punishment proposed for unauthorised absence was removal
from service. The order does not seem to have considered the reasons
given by the petitioner for the unauthorised absence, if any. Therefore,
even the punishment proposed was highly excessive and
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. The
Tribunal has not considered that the enquiry conducted on the very same
day of issuance of the charge sheet is in violation of any rule or
principles of natural justice. The rules provide for a minimum of 7 days
for any person to submit his/her explanation to the charge sheet. Merely
because the petitioner has submitted his explanation, the respondents
need not have acted in such a hurried manner and appointed the enquiry
officer also on the very same day. In view of the same, this Court is
satisfied that the enquiry has not been conducted properly and the
Tribunal has not considered the facts in proper perspective.
6. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal dt.16.09.2021 in I.D.No.06
of 2020 both on the validity of the enquiry as well as on the punishment
imposed is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner into service and conduct an enquiry, if any, or reconsider
imposing a lesser punishment than what is imposed. The petitioner shall
be eligible for all consequential benefits.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 22.04.2024
Svv
