Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs Presiding Officer on 9 January, 2014
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 9.1.2014
Prem Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and
Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu. Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellant.
Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) Appellant was serving as a Conductor with respondent No.2. His service was terminated on a ground that he had embezzled some amount. It was so said on the basis of checking made on 14.9.1990. After enquiry, wherein appellant was given an ample opportunity to defend himself, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 19.8.1992. Appellant challenged that order before respondent No.1. After trial, his claim for reinstatement was rejected. It was specifically noticed by respondent No.1 that at the time of departmental enquiry, appropriate opportunity of hearing was given to the workman and enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Appellant approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7660 of Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.17 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (O&M) 2 1997 which was dismissed on 17.5.2013. Hence, this appeal.
It is primary contention of counsel for the appellant that when ordering termination of the appellant from service, evidence led by him during enquiry was not considered. It is stated that before the date of incident i.e. 14.9.1990 when checking was conducted, old tickets were taken from the concerned Conductor. To say so, reliance was placed on the statement made by his co-villagers, namely Shamsher Singh and Krishan Kumar.
At the time of hearing, we asked counsel for the appellant as to whether those names have been mentioned in the written statement or not. On reading of the written statement, he categorically stated that names of witnesses were not mentioned in the written statement filed. It appears that those witnesses were procured and they tried to defend the appellant being known to them. The Presiding Officer and the learned Single Judge have taken note of entire evidence on record. When dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant, learned Single Judge has opined as under:-
"5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is clear that the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the inquiry had been conducted in its proper manner and opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Even the request of the workman for changing the Inquiry Officer had been accepted by the management and he was given proper opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the workman had also been given opportunity to lead evidence in defence. There was no lacuna in inquiry Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.17 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (O&M) 3 proceedings and accordingly, it was held that the workman had been charged with the misconduct of embezzlement and had been rightly terminated from services. Perusal of the inquiry report would go on to show that the department examined as many as two Inspectors namely Sh. O.P. Singhwani and Ram Sarup alongwith two Sub Inspectors namely Sh.Ramesh Chand Sehgal and Sh. Chaman Lal who were part of the checking team which had stopped the bus and noticed that the petitioner had issued old tickets to 18 passengers. The grouse of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated and that there was a conspiracy since the old tickets had earlier been collected from him, does not cut much ice to this Court since the four officials have been examined by the management before the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner had failed to even examine any official from his department to show that the said persons were inimical towards him and as to why they have collected old tickets on an earlier occasion. All the four officials could not be prejudiced against the petitioners in such a manner that they would hatch a conspiracy and get him dismissed in such a manner as now has been done. The two defence witnesses who have been produced by the petitioner belong to his village and, therefore, the submission of the counsel that their statements were not properly considered by the Inquiry Officer or by respondent no. 3 is but to be rejected since respondent no. 3 noticed that the statement of both these witnesses did not tally with each other, there was a contradiction inter se between their statements. The General Manager, after issuing the show cause notice had also personally heard the petitioner and thereafter passed the termination order and, therefore, principles of natural justice have been complied with.
6. Reliance upon Anil Kumar's case (supra) is Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.17 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (O&M) 4 misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case since in that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry report itself could not have been acted upon since it did not even discuss the evidence of the witnesses and a mere recording had been done that the charges were proved. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer had diligently recorded the statements of all the four officials who had checked the bus and also the statements of the defence witnesses which the petitioner had produced and thereafter had recorded a finding that the allegation stood proved. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer had also issued a proper show cause notice to the petitioner and heard him in person and come to the conclusion that no conclusive proof had been given by the petitioner that there was some conspiracy by the Inspectors against him and after rejecting the defence version, come to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner would be proper and retaining him in service would not be appropriate. Similarly, in Dr.Avtar Singh's case (supra) it has been held that judicial review would be permissible only where the Courts find that the proceedings against the delinquent employee was inconsistent and the principles of natural justice had been violated.
7. In the present case, it has come on record that the required procedure had been followed and the petitioner has been given all proper opportunities to defend himself and thus, there is no valid ground to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Labour Court. It is a settled principle that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Tribunal is there only where there is manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings and where there is clear ignorance or disregard to any provisions of law. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that on what Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.17 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (O&M) 5 ground the writ Court could interfere with the present award. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Shri Ram Chander, 1976 PLR 842 had held that the evidence of the checker where he found that the passengers were travelling without tickets at the time of checking could not be considered as hearsay evidence. It was accordingly held that there was no bar against the reception of such evidence by the domestic Tribunals and the extent to which the said evidence may be received. The submission of the employee that such evidence could not be taken into consideration was brushed aside and the observations made by a Division Bench in Tarlochan Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 1975 Current Law Journal 1 were over ruled. It was also held that where the disciplinary authority is agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, it cannot be said as a matter of law that it is bound to record reasons in each and every case. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh, 1977 (2) SCC 491 also held to the same affect that merely because statements of passengers were not recorded, it could not be held that the procedure followed was invalid. Accordingly, it was held that the evidence of the Inspector of the flying squad in operation was relevant to the charge levelled against the employee and could not be treated as hearsay evidence and accordingly, the termination order which had been set aside by the trial Court was restored."
It was specifically noticed that at the time of enquiry, sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself. He was also given proper opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses and thereafter to lead his own evidence. It is also noticed that the appellant has failed to show any malafide on the part of checking staff as was Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.17 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No. 3 of 2014 (O&M) 6 alleged. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that there was compliance with the principles of natural justice.
No case is made out for interference by this Court in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge January 9, 2014 "DK"
Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.01.17 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document