Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. R.N Singal, Advocate
Judges
  • Surya Kant, J.
Acts
  • provisions of the Haryana Civil Services [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1984,
  • Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. R.N Singal, Advocate
Judges
  • Surya Kant, J.
Acts
  • provisions of the Haryana Civil Services [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1984,
  • Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of the Opinion (SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL])

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Haryana Roadways. FIR No. 465 dated 10.08.1993 under Section 409 IPC was registered at Police Station City Hisar alleging misappropriation of tickets worth Rs. 16,789.50. The petitioner was arrested on 15.09.1994 and released on bail on 15.11.1994. Although he purportedly reported for duty after his release, the authorities did not permit him to resume work, relying on an order dated 21.10.1994 terminating his services.

The petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar, by judgment dated 11.07.2002, which held that while entrustment of tickets to the petitioner was proved, dishonest misappropriation was not proved; the acquittal was on the basis of benefit of doubt and the Department was left free to take departmental action. Thereafter the petitioner applied for reinstatement and raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court initially held in the petitioner’s favour by an award dated 22.05.2009, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages.

The Department challenged that award in this Court (CWP No. 13366 of 2009). This Court observed that the Labour Court had not returned a finding on the reasonableness of the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on that issue. On remand the Labour Court framed issues and, after fresh adjudication, answered against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that fresh award before this Court. The present opinion records the Court’s hearing and disposes of the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Labour Court ought to have returned a finding regarding the reasonableness of the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction to conclude that holding a departmental inquiry was not feasible (in the context of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution).
  2. The issues framed by the Labour Court on fresh adjudication:
    1. “As per terms of reference?”
    2. “Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was illegal, unfair and liable to be set aside, as alleged?”
    3. “Whether the reference is time barred?”
    4. “Relief”.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded as follows:

  • The Court acknowledged the settled proposition that the disciplinary authority’s satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry must be founded on valid reasons in writing.
  • The Court found that the three necessary ingredients (formation of an opinion, reasons recorded in writing, and that inquiry was not reasonably practicable) were proved on the record: the disciplinary authority recorded in writing that the petitioner was in custody and that holding an inquiry in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1984, and principles of natural justice was not possible.
  • The Court noted chronology and conduct: the petitioner was released on bail on 15.11.1994, became aware of the dismissal order, and did not prefer any departmental appeal or challenge to the order. The Court observed there was no conviction; hence there was no legal or factual necessity for the petitioner to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings before seeking redress.
  • The Court considered the Labour Court award and the criminal court’s judgment together and observed that the record disclosed multiple disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, including allegations of misappropriation of tickets totaling larger amounts (a separate inquiry for misappropriation of tickets worth Rs. 39,299/- was noted) and continuous absence from duty w.e.f. 20.04.1993.
  • The Court recorded that the petitioner had not alleged mala fide or bias against the disciplinary authority. Given the pattern of misconduct alleged (habitual misappropriation), the Court held that if the Disciplinary Authority bona fide formed the opinion required to invoke Article 311(2)(b) and dismissed the petitioner, the Court need not extend legal technicalities to protect such an employee.
  • On that basis the Court concluded the disciplinary decision was taken in public interest and did not warrant interference by the Court.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED IN LIMINE

Holding (core ruling): The writ petition challenging the Labour Court's award was dismissed in limine, thereby upholding the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss the petitioner under Article 311(2)(b) as not warranting interference.

Implications: The direct effect is that the petitioner’s challenge fails and the dismissal from service stands affirmed. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or purport to lay down a new precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Raghubir Singh Petitioner v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hisar & Ors. S

    SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

    The petitioner - Workman is aggrieved by the award dated 17.05.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Hisar answering the reference against him and dismissing his claim for re-instatement.

    [2]. The petitioner was a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways when FIR No. 465 dated 10.08.1993, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him in Police Station, City Hisar, inter-alia, alleging that he had misappropriated tickets amounting to Rs. 16,789.50. The petitioner was arrested in the afore-stated case on 15.09.1994 and remained in custody till he was released on bail on 15.11.1994 He is claimed to have reported for duty after his release on bail but the Authorities ddid not allow him to resume duties on the plea that his services already stood terminated vide order dated 21.10.1994 The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hisar vide judgment dated 11.07.2002 holding that though entrustment of tickets to the petitioner stood proved but “dishonest misappropriation thereof could not be proved by the prosecution”. The petitioner was, thus, given the benefit of doubt but with liberty to the Department to take departmental action against him. It was thereafter only that the petitioner moved an application for his reinstatement and then raised the industrial dispute which was initially answered in his favour by the Labour Court vide Award dated 22.05.2009 holding him entitled for reinstatement in service with 50% back wages.

    [3]. The Department challenged the afore-stated award before this Court in CWP No. 13366 of 2009. After taking notice of the fact that the petitioner-workman was removed from service by invoking the powers under Article 311[2][b] of the Constitution and the Labour Court ought to have returned a finding regarding reasonableness of the satisfaction of the Authority to arrive at the conclusion that holding of departmental inquiry was not feasible, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on the above mentioned issue.

    [4]. The Labour Court while deciding the case afresh, framed the following issues:-

    “1. As per terms of reference? OPA

    2. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was illegal, unfair and liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPA

    3. Whether the reference is time barred? OPM

    4. Relief”.

    [5]. While deciding the first question with reference to Article 311[2][b] of the Constitution, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-workman was served with a charge-sheet and the inquiry proceedings were dispensed with by the Disciplinary Authority on formation of an opinion that it was not feasible to hold the inquiry as the petitioner was in custody. The award takes notice of the fact that the petitioner was facing separate inquiries for misappropriation of tickets worth Rs. 39,299/- besides for being absent from duty continuously w.e.f 20.04.1993 The Labour Court has further found that there is an inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute as the workman was dismissed from service on 20.10.1994 whereas the industrial dispute has been raised by him after acquittal in the criminal case, i.e, in the year 2002.

    [6]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

    [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

    [8]. There is indeed no doubt that the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against a delinquent, must be founded upon valid reasons in writing. The aforesaid three ingredients have been proved in the present case. The Disciplinary Authority recorded the reasons in writing that the petitioner was in jail and holding of an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Civil Services [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1984, in consonance with the principles of natural justice was not possible. The petitioner as per his own case, was released from jail on 15.11.1994 and admittedly he came to know of the order of dismissal passed against him. The petitioner neither preferred a departmental appeal nor challenged the said order before an appropriate forum. It was not a case where the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of his conduct which led to his conviction in a criminal case as there was no order of conviction ever passed against him. There was no legal or factual necessity for the petitioner to wait for the outcome of the pending criminal case. The Labour Court award, coupled with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate acquitting the petitioner in the criminal case, further reveal that the petitioner had gone completely out of control and was indulging in one or the other act of misappropriation of the Government property. There were more than one disciplinary cases against the petitioner. He took away tickets worth thousands of rupees and misappropriated that amount. The petitioner has not attributed any mala-fide or bias against anyone either in these proceedings or earlier. In order to get rid of a habitual embezzler, if the Disciplinary Authority formed a bona-fide opinion to invoke Article 311[2][b] and dismissed him from service, no margin of legal technicalities need to be extended in favour of such an employee. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority was in public interest and calls for no interference by this Court.

    [9]. Dismissed in limine.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Raghubir Singh Petit... v. Presiding Officer, I...
    (Nov 14, 2011)