Madhya Pradesh High Court
V.K. Kaul vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 11 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)MPHT390
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Chief Justice, Dipak Misra
JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.
In this batch of appeals, the factual matrix and grounds urged being common, it was heard analogously and is disposed of by this common order.
1. The compass of the factual score as depicted is that the appellants were charge-sheeted on the foundation that on 5-3-1999, they went on a strike sat on "Dharna "for seeking implementation of pay scales recommended by the 5th Pay Commission, thought the Management-Company had incurred a loss to the tune of Rupees Twenty Crores and further that they did not discharge their duties faithfully from' 5-3-1999 to 29-3-1999 affecting the production of the Company and used abusive language.
2. After framing of charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations. All the charges levelled against the appellants were proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of dismissal.
3. As there is no provision of appeal, the appellants approached this Court invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that the Enquiry Officer recorded the finding without much evidence on record and hence, the conclusions arrived at by him are not sustainable. It was also put forth that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate and frustrates the concept of doctrine of proportionality. The learned Single Judge referred to certain decisions and came to hold that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were beyond reproach and it can not be said that they suffer from perversity of approach. Being of this view, he declined to interfere.
4. Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in all the cases, raised a singular contention, which relates to quantum of punishment. To justify and bolster the aforesaid spectrum, the learned Counsel canvassed that actually the workmen did not work for one day, but in all other days, they worked. It is putforth by him that the findings with regard to use of abusive language has not been probed properly. It is urged by him that taking into consideration the long service rendered by the appellants and their claim, the order of dismissal is absolutely shockingly disproportionate and the same should have been interferred with by the learned Single Judge and that having not been done, interference in this intra-Court appeal is not only warranted but imparatively necessitous.
5. Mr. H.K. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Management, in oppugnation proponed that the appellants did not bother about the financial crunch suffered by the Company and demanded the pay scales recommended by the 5th Pay Commission and incited the people to go on strike, thereby affecting the production and hence they do not deserve leniency.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and taking note of allegations made in the charge-sheet and considering the stand put forth by Mr. S.C. Sharma, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where quantum of punishment deserves to be interfered with. We may hasten to add in ordinary course that we are at loath to interfere with the quantum of punishment, but this frescoes a different and peculiar scenario with projection of speciality, which compels us to have a deeper scraning in regard to quantum. We may note here that Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the Company submitted that the workmen created a hazardous situation but when we look at the facts in proper perspective and scan the same in a detailed manner, we are of the opinion that the workmen, who have rendered such a long period of service, should not have been thrown to the streets. Be it noted, they were of the conviction that they were fighting sanguinely for their rights and might not conceive of such grave consequences. But the Management, according to us, should not have taken such a drastic step to throw them away from the service. This is a fit case which deserves for striking of balance. Because of this, in our considered opinion, doctrine of proportionality gets attracted in this case. We would have ordinarily left it to the Disciplinary Authority to convert the punishment, but we are inclined to think, to put the controversy to rest and avoid further litigation, the said exercise can be done by us. Keeping the aforesaid in view, we sought the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties and we must state without any reservation that they cooperated and left it to our discretion. Thus on a broad consensus, we proceed to think it appropriate and apposite to modify the order of punishment that the appellants shall be taken back in service. They shall not be entitled to any back wages. This should be a lesson for them. We may further clarify that they would not be entitled to computation of their past services for earning the benefit like increment, promotion, but as far as their retiral benefits are concerned, they would be counted. In all other aspects, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge stands confirmed.
7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.