Karnataka High Court
National Mining Development vs Khajababu Sheik S/O Amrpasha on 11 June, 2018
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL Nos.100638/2016(S-DIS)
C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100639/2016
WRIT APPEAL NO.100640/2016
WRIT APPEAL NO.100641/2016
& WRIT APPEAL NO.100642/2016
WA NO.100638/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
NOW REP. BY DGM
DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
2. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)
NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
LIMITED, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
2
DONIMAL TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI & VIJAY M MALALI, ADVS.)
AND:
KHAJABABU SHEIK S/O AMARPASHA
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC:JUNIOR OFFICER
MINES, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR C/R)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.105840/2015(S-DIS) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY WRIT PETITION NO.105840/2015(S-DIS)
BE DISMISSED WITH COST.
WA NO.100639/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
NOW REP. BY DGM
DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
3
2. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)
NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
LIMITED, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMAL TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI & VIJAY M MALALI, ADVS.)
AND:
ANADI MAHAPATRA S/O LATE
LALMOHAN MAHAPTRA,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC:JUNIOR OFFICER
MINES, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR C/R)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.105843/2015(S-DIS) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY WRIT PETITION NO.105843/2015(S-DIS)
BE DISMISSED WITH COST.
WA NO.100640/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
4
NOW REP. BY DGM
DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
2. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)
NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
LIMITED, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMAL TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI & VIJAY M MALALI, ADVS.)
AND:
VENKATA SUDARSHAN
S/O LATE T.C. VENKATA SUBBANNA,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:JUNIOR OFFICER
MINES, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR C/R)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.105841/2015(S-DIS) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY WRIT PETITION NO.105841/2015(S-DIS)
BE DISMISSED WITH COST.
5
WA NO.100641/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
NOW REP. BY DGM
DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
2. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)
NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
LIMITED, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMAL TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI & VIJAY M MALALI, ADVS.)
AND:
AVIJIT ROY S/O HARI PADA ROY
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:JUNIOR OFFICER
MINES, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR C/R)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
6
NO.105842/2015(S-DIS) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY WRIT PETITION NO.105842/2015(S-DIS)
BE DISMISSED WITH COST.
WA NO.100642/2016
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
NOW REP. BY DGM
DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
2. JOINT GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)
NATIONAL MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPN.
LIMITED, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMAL TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI & VIJAY M MALALI, ADVS.)
AND:
P. THANESH KUMAR S/O N. PRAKASAM
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC:JUNIOR OFFICER
MINES, DONIMALI IRON ORE MINES,
DONIMALI TOWNSHIP,
SANDUR TALUK, DIST:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR C/R)
7
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.01.2016 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.105836/2015(S-DIS) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY WRIT PETITION NO.105836/2015(S-DIS)
BE DISMISSED WITH COST.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In these intra-court appeals, the appellant, who is the employer, has impugned the Writ Court's common order dated 25.01.2016 in a series of writ petitions filed by the employees/respondents impugning the separate, but similar, termination order/s dated 15.06.2015 issued by the appellant to each of such employee/respondent.
The Writ Court by the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 has allowed the writ petitions quashing the termination order/s holding that the termination order/s issued to the respondents is/are not orders of discharge simpliciter; and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellant proposed removal of the respondents, the appellant ought to have held inquiries giving the respondents an 8 opportunity. The Writ Court has further directed the re-instatement of the respondents with back-wages and consequential benefits reserving liberty to the appellant to conduct necessary enquiry and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appointment order/s were issued to each of the employee/ respondent on the specific term (Clause 14 of the letter of appointment) that if it was proved that any information furnished by them was false or there was any willful suppression of any material information by them, the appellant would be entitled to remove the employee and take such other action as deemed fit by the appellant, and in terms thereof, when it was found that the respondents/employees had failed to submit the original year-wise marks sheet/s and original Experience Certificate/s, they were issued with order/s dated 15.06.2015 terminating the respondents/employees from the service exercising the right reserved under Clause 14 and therefore, the order/s dated 15.06.2015 are orders of discharge simpliciter. The learned counsel further submitted that the writ petitions, however, have been allowed by the common 9 impugned order setting aside the order/s dated 15.06.2015 holding that the appellants have concluded that the allegation against each of the respondent, which are stigmatic, was proved, and therefore such termination order/s are stigmatic, but such finding is factually incorrect as the termination order/s are issued in exercise of right under Clause 14 of the respective Letters of appointment because, on verification it was found that the employees/respondents had failed to produce original year-wise marks sheet and original Experience Certificate.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/employees, on the other hand, submitted that the very tenure of the order/s dated 15.06.2015 establishes that the termination of each of the respondents was on the allegation of 'misconduct', and therefore, the removal by the order/s dated 15.06.2015 are stigmatic, and such orders could not be made without enquiry. The learned counsel based on these submissions argued that the Writ Court's order do not call for interference.
10
The appellant in the order/s dated 15.06.2015, while recording it was found by the appellant that the respondents/employees had not furnished original year-wise marks sheet and Experience Certificate for the relevant years, has terminated the employees'/respondents' service with immediate effect for the reasoning that the termination orders are issued because 'furnishing false information regarding qualification, previous service germane to the employment at the time of employment or during the course of employment' tantamount to 'misconduct' under Rule 5.4 of the relevant NMDC Employee's (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
This reasoning in the appellant's order dated 15.06.2015 leaves no doubt that this alleged 'misconduct' by the respondents/ employees not only formed the foundation for issuance of the appellant's order dated 15.06.2015 but also encapsulates the motive for termination of the respondents'/employees' service . It is settled law, as extracted by the Writ Court, that if termination is motivated by allegations that tantamount to misconduct and if that forms the foundation for the issuance of the termination order, then such termination, being 11 stigmatic and adverse to the employee's interest, cannot be issued without holding an inquiry. The Writ Court considering the factual circumstances and the relevant rules, and relying upon the settled principles of law, has rightly held that the impugned termination order/s dated 15.06.2015 is/are liable to be set-aside, and accordingly, by the Common impugned order dated 25.01.2016 has set-aside the termination order/s dated 15.06.2015 with directions and liberty as stated supra. As such, the impugned Common Order dated 25.01.2016 by the Writ Court does not call for any interference, and accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.
All pending applications do not survive for consideration, and hence, they are also rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JTR