Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bank Of Raj.Ltd.Jaipur vs P.O.,C.I.T.Jaipur on 3 March, 2010
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5993/1996 The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Central Industrial Tribunal & Anr. Date of order : 3/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri R.K. Kala for the petitioners. Shri Dharmendra Jain for the respondent.
****** This writ petition was filed way back in the year 1996 assailing the order dated 14.12.1995 by which the domestic enquiry held by the petitioners was not held to be fair and the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence before the Tribunal itself.
Shri R.K. Kala, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is no impediment in law for the enquiry officer to put certain queries to a witness in order to elicit the truth or to get certain points clarified. Learned counsel in support of his arguments cited the judgement of Supreme Court in Munchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. vs. Their Workmen-1975 LLJ Volume 1 page 391, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Arora-1997 LLR 335 and judgement of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Girdhar Singh & Anr.-1997(2) WLC (Raj.) 48. Learned counsel submitted that in any case the information received by way of answer to the queries posed by the enquiry officer was not the foundation of the enquiry report or any finding of guilt against him. Nothing of this sort was discussed in the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, nor was it shown as to in what manner prejudice was caused to the respondent. Unless that is done, it cannot be said that merely because the enquiry officer put certain queries to the respondent workman, he was prejudiced thereby. Learned counsel in order to buttress this argument cited the recent judgement of Supreme Court in Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha-JT 2010 (2) SC 218. Learned counsel su8bmtited that the impugned order be set aside or in the alternative, the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh order keeping in view the settled proposition of law in the judgements cited supra.
Shri Dharmendra Jain, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that this Court has dismissed similar writ petitions relying on the judgement of Supreme Court holding that in a matter of interlocutory nature, interference ought not to be made in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel cited the judgement of this Court in Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd. vs. Labour Court & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4766/96 and connected matters decided by judgement 18.5.1998 and judgement of Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration-AIR 1984 SC 153 referred to therein. Learned counsel submitted that the D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.608/98 filed against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by this Court vide judgement dated 11.1.1999.
During the course of arguments, both the learned counsels took the court though the impugned order dated 14.11.1995 and the proceedings of the domestic enquiry which the petitioners have placed on record as Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the petitioners was pointedly asked as to what was the cross examination made by the Presenting Officer when the respondent-workman was examined as a witness, he could not show any such cross examination. On the contrary what is evident from the proceedings is that the charge against the respondent was that he produced forged L.T.C. bills. The queries which were put to respondent-workman by the enquiry officer which are from page 42 to 44 of Annexure-4 shows that substantial nature of information was gathered by way of answers to the queries made by the enquiry officer, which queries ought to have been otherwise made by the Presenting Officer. From the proceedings, it is not evident whether any such cross examination was made by the Presenting Officer. If that was so, it was indeed a grave prejudice caused to the workman as the enquiry officer could not be expected to place him for the Presenting Officer or himself act as a prosecutor. He could made certain queries to get the doubts clarified. But then the answers which were obtained by the queries put by him were substantial once, relating to the charge against respondent on which eventually the core of enquiry report was founded. Learned counsel for the respondent informs the Court that even though the operation of the impugned order was stayed by order of this Court passed on 20.12.1996, but before that date, evidence of both the parties had been substantially completed i.e. after the passing of the impugned judgement dated 14.11.1995 and before the impugned order of stay. The fact assumes all the more significance in view the fact that ultimate penalty that was awarded to the respondent workman was that of dismissal from service. In any case, therefore, remand of matter at this distance of time requiring the Tribunal to decide the question of fairness of the enquiry again would not be conducive to the interest of justice.
I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
RS