Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pushpendra Kumar Garg S/O Late Shri ... vs The Managing Director on 28 August, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.352/2019
Pushpendra Kumar Garg S/o Late Shri Damodar Prasad Garg,
R/o 80/12, Shyam Gali, Hathi Bata, Ajmer.
----Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Transport
Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.
2. The General Manager (Store), Rajasthan State Transport
Corporation, Nigam Marg, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Mathur
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Judgment
28/08/2019
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single
Judge, who affirmed the award, whereby the writ petitioner's
claim was rejected.
2. On charges of wilful absence from duty on 21 different
occasions, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
(RSRTC) issued show cause notice to the appellant, its employee,
initiating disciplinary proceedings. He was kept under suspension
during the currency of the enquiry. The departmental enquiry
resulted in adverse findings; he was consequently removed from
service. The writ petitioner challenged the removal order dated
17.09.1985 and sought reference, in 1997. Subsequently, Labour
Court considered the relevant merits of the case and by an award
dated 27.08.2010 rejected the claim. The appellant's writ petition
challenging the award was rejected; the learned Single Judge
observed as follows :-
(Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 09:10:01 PM)
(2 of 3) [SAW-352/2019]
"Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity during the course of enquiry to submit his documents. The labour Court has examined the statement of claim whereof two charge-sheets were issued to the petitioner on 09.04.1980 and 28.05.1983, with regard to his continuous absence from duty.
It is also noticed that several letters informing about inquiry were sent to the petitioner and even a publication to that effect was issued in the newspaper calling him to appear for the inquiry but he has chosen not to appear in the first enquiry while he has put in appearance in the second inquiry. Thus his absence before the Inquiry Officer in relation to the first charge-sheet has been found to be deliberate and willful and therefore the labour court has found the conducting of inquiry ex- parte as against petitioner as fair and proper. Labour Court has noticed that the petitioner having remained absent willfully in the years 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 & 1983 for several periods, grounds for absence were not found to be genuine and in view thereof the award has been passed rejecting the reference as against the petitioner. This Court finds that not only the petitioner has shown laxity towards his duties and remained absent willfully and even before this Court he has kept the writ petition pending for seven years.
Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the labour court. The writ petition is dismissed."
3. Learned counsel argues that findings of the Labour Court with respect to fairness of the enquiry cannot be sustained. He highlighted that during the pendency of enquiry, no subsistence allowance was paid and moreover legal assistance was not provided to the petitioner-appellant.
4. This Court has considered the submissions and the pleadings. The writ petitioner-workman, a public employee, does not currently dispute that on 21 different occasions he was absent from work without any authorized leave. He does not appear to have given prior intimation or sought permission of the employer. His defence in the departmental proceedings as well as in the (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 09:10:01 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-352/2019] subsequent legal proceedings was that he was unwell. The chronic nature of his absence is evident from the tabulated chart, produced in the award of the Labour Court shows that cumulatively the absence was for significant periods. As far as workman's argument regarding the benefit of subsistence allowance goes, no such plea appears to have been advanced before the Labour Court which found that the enquiry was fair and proper.
5. In view of the findings which are of concurrent nature, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for interference.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ VIJAY/JYOTI/29 (Downloaded on 03/09/2019 at 09:10:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)