Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lucky Jangid vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India ... on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Kuldeep Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.377/2021
Lucky Jangid S/o Chhittar Lal Jangid, age 31 yrs., R/o House
No.12/235, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (A Government
of India Enterprise), through its Site Director, Rawatbhata,
Rajasthan Site PO Anushakti-323303 Via Kota (Rajasthan).
2. Head (Human Resource) and Disciplinary Authority,
Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site, NPCILPOAnushakti-323303 Via
Kota (Rajasthan).
3. Chief Superintendent, Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site Unit - 5 &
6, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Anushakti-
323303 Via Kota (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Neha Gyamlani
Ms. Bhavya Golecha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
JUDGMENT
PRONOUNCED ON ::: 21/10/2022
RESERVED ON ::: 27/09/2022
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE KULDEEP MATHUR,J.)
The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) challenging the charge sheet dated 28.10.2020 issued as per the provisions of Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site (NPCIL) Certified (Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM) (2 of 8) [SAW-377/2021] Standing Orders (hereinafter referred to as 'Standing Orders') was dismissed.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant-writ petitioner is an employee of the respondent-organisation. The appellant-writ petitioner on 03.05.2013, was served with a charge-sheet for remaining absent from duties on various occasions during 28.09.2012 to 31.03.2013. It was further alleged that the appellant-writ petitioner is in habit of reporting late to the plant site late and leaving before time. Pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 03.05.2013, a departmental enquiry was conducted against appellant-writ-petitioner, in which he was found guilty. Consequently, a punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year, without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Yet an another charge-sheet dated 02.12.2014 came to be served upon the appellant-writ petitioner for remaining absent from duties for the following periods: 20.05.2014 to 04.11.2014, 06.11.2014 to 16.11.2014 and, thereafter from 19.11.2014 continuously. In the departmental enquiry initiated in furtherance of the charge-sheet dated 02.12.2014, the charges were found to be proved. Thereupon, disciplinary authority, vide order dated 19.06.2018, imposed penalty upon the appellant-writ petitioner of reduction to the lowest pay of ₹21,700/-, in Level-1 of Pay Matrix Column-3 for a period of five years, with immediate effect with the conditions that during the period of said reduction employee shall not earn any increments of pay. After the period of reduction of five years, his pay shall be restored as per his entitlement in Pay Matrix Column-3, which he was drawing or presumed to have been drawn by him on the date of the said (Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM) (3 of 8) [SAW-377/2021] reduction i.e. ₹26,000/-. Further, it was ordered that period of unauthorised absence i.e. from 20.05.2014 to 04.11.2014, 6.11.2014 to 16.11.2014 and 19.11.2014 to 02.12.2014 shall be treated as 'Dies-non'.
The impugned charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020 has been served upon appellant-writ petitioner containing following three charges: firstly, the appellant-writ petitioner remained absent from duties unauthorisedly for a total period of 1278 days between 01.01.2011 to 22.03.2020; secondly, during the aforesaid period, the appellant-writ petitioner on 391 occasions, came late to the plant site and left early; thirdly, the appellant-writ petitioner is habitual of remaining absent from duties without permission and justifiable reasons. Also, the appellant-writ petitioner is in habit of coming late to the plant site and leaving early. Looking to aforesaid conduct, on various occassions, letters and memorandum had been served upon the appellant-writ petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that for the charges levelled in the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020, the appellant-writ petitioner had already been penalised vide orders dated 28.03.2014 and 19.06.2018 by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, respondents cannot be permitted to punish him twice for the same offence as this would tantamount to double jeopardy. Learned counsel further submitted that issuance of the charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020, while the appellant-writ petitioner was under going the punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority for the same charges is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. To strengthen the aforementioned arguments, reliance was placed on (Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM) (4 of 8) [SAW-377/2021] the following judgments: Man Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. C.W. No.627/2001, Judicature of Bombay vs. Shashikant S Patil & Anr.: (2000) 1 SCC 416, Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari: (2017) 2 SCC 308, Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi: 1981 Cr.L.J. 306, Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. vs. HC Narinder Singh: (2004) 13 SCC 342, Union of India & Ors. vs. K.N. Upadhyay & Other: Writ A. No.4769/2013, Canara Bank & Ors. vs. Swapan Kumar Pani & Anr.: (2006) 3 SCC 251, Roshan Ali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:
MANU/RH/0303/2015 and Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2010) 10 SCC 539.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a span of twelve years of service, the appellant- writ petitioner had been served with three charge-sheets and various warning letters, which sufficiently proves that the conduct of the petitioner is recalcitrant and filled with negligence towards the duties and responsibilities assigned by the respondent-
organisation. Counsel further submitted that though the charge-
sheet dated 28.10.2020 includes certain period for which the charge-sheets were issued earlier but the nature of the present charge-sheet is comprehensive as it takes into account the totality of conduct of the petitioner including previous charge-sheets and punishment orders issued against the appellant-writ petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
In the charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020, issued against the petitioner as per the provisions of Standing Orders, following charges have been levelled against the petitioner:-(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM)
(5 of 8) [SAW-377/2021]
"vuqPNsn&1
;g fd Jh yDdh tkafxM+] deZpkjh la[;k 1231941] rduhf'k;u&ch] ,Q-,p-;q- vuqHkkx] vkj-vkj-lkbV-&5 ,oa 6 ds :i esa dk;Z djrs gq, fnukad 01@01@2011 ls 22@03@2020 rd dh vof/k ds nkSjku fofHkUu voljksa ij dqy 1278 fnu la;a= LFky ls vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkfr jgsA bl izdkj Jh yDdh tkafxM+] deZpkjh la[;k 1231941] rduhf'k;u&ch] ,Q-,p-;q- vuqHkkx] vkj-vkj-lkbV-&5 ,oa 6 ds mijksDr d`R; ^^fcuk iwoZ vuqefr ;k mfpr dkj.k ds la;a= LFky ij vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr** ls dk;kZy; vuq'kklu ds fo:) dk;Z fd;k gS tks fd Rawatbhata Rajsthan Site (NPCIL) Certified Standing Orders ds fu;e 10-2] 10-3] 16¼b½ & ¼c½] 17-5 ,oa 17-6 esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds varxZr dnkpkj ¼Miscoduct½ dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA "
vuqPNsn&2 ;g fd Jh yDdh tkafxM+] deZpkjh la[;k 1231941] rduhf'k;u&ch] ,Q-,p-;q- vuqHkkx] vkj-vkj-lkbV&5 ,oa 6 ds :i esa dk;Z djrs gq, fnukad 01@01@2011 ls 22@03@2020 rd dh vof/k ds nkSjku dqy 391 voljksa ij vYidkyhu mifLFkfr nsrs gq, la;a= LFky ij nsjh ls vk;s vFkok la;a= LFky dks NksM+ dj tYnh pys x,A bl izdkj Jh yDdh tkafxM+] deZpkjh la[;k 1231941] rduhf'k;u&ch] ,Q-,p-;q- vuqHkkx] vkj-vkj-lkbV&5 ,oa 6 ds mijksDr d`R; ^^fcuk iwoZ vuqefr ;k mfpr dkj.k vukf/kd`r :i ls la;a= LFky ij nsjh ls vkuk vFkok la;a= LFky dks NksM+ dj tYnh pys tkus dh vYidkyhu mifLFkfr** ls dk;kZy; vuq'kklu ds fo:) dk;Z fd;k gS tks fd Rawatbhata Rajsthan Site (NPCIL) Certified Standing Orders ds fu;e 10-2] 10-3] 16¼b½ & ¼c½] 17-5 esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds varxZr dnkpkj ¼Miscoduct½ dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA vuqPNsn&3 ;g fd Jh yDdh tkafxM+] deZpkjh la[;k 1231941] rduhf'k;u&ch] ,Q-,p-;q- vuqHkkx] vkj-vkj-lkbV&5 ,oa 6 ds :i esa dk;Z djrs gq, fcuk iwoZ vuqefr izkIr fd;s rFkk fcuk mfpr dkj.k crk, vukf/kd`r :i ls la;a= LFky ls vuqifLFkr jgus] la;a= LFky ij nsjh ls vkus vFkok la;a= LFky dks NksM+ dj tYnh pys tkus dh vYidkyhu mifLFkfr ds vknh gSA blds vykok Jh yDdh tkafxM+ vius vuq'kklughu vkpj.k ls izpfyr fu;eksa ds vogsyuk djus ds Hkh vknh gSA iwoZ esa Hkh bl laca/k esa Jh yDdh tkafxM+ dks M~;wVh ij vfu;fer gksus ds dkj.k fofHkUu voljksa ij i= ,oa Kkiu fn, x, gSa rnqijkar Jh yDdh tkafxM+ ij fofHkUu voljksa ij vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh Hkh dh xbZ gSA (Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM) (6 of 8) [SAW-377/2021] bl izdkj Jh yDdh tkafxM+] deZpkjh la[;k 1231941] rduhf'k;u&ch] ,Q-,p-;q- vuqHkkx] vkj-vkj-lkbV-&5 ,oa 6 ds mijksDr d`R; ^^vknru fcuk iwoZ vuqefr ;k mfpr dkj.k ds la;a= LFky ij vukf/kd`r vuqifLFkfr] fcuk iwoZ vuqefr ;k mfpr dkj.k ds vuf/kd`r :i ls la;a= LFky ij nsjh ls vkuk vFkok la;a= LFky dks NksM+ dj tYnh pys tkus dh vYidkyhu mifLFkfr** ls dk;kZy; vuq'kklu ds fo:) dk;Z fd;k gS tks fd Rawatbhata Rajsthan Site (NPCIL) Certified Standing Orders ds fu;e 10-2] 10-3] 16¼b½ & ¼c½] 17-5 ,oa 17-6 esa fufgr izko/kkuksa ds varxZr dnkpkj ¼Misconduct½ dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA Clause 21.2(p) of the Standing Orders is reproduced herein-
below for the sake of ready reference:
"If the workman is found guilty of any major charges and if the disciplinary authority wants to impose any major penalty, he shall give a show cause notice to the workman and shall inform him the penalty proposed to be imposed on him, together with the details regarding any extenuating or aggravating circumstances including any adverse remarks or past record and get the explanation from the workman."
From the perusal of the impugned charge sheet dated 28.10.2020, it is apparent that charges levelled therein are not exactly the same for which charge-sheets had been issued to the petitioner on 03.05.2013 and 02.12.2014. True it is that the impugned charge-sheet includes certain periods which were part of the earlier charge-sheets but in light of Clause 21.2(p) of the Standing Orders, in cases where the disciplinary authority intends to imposes any major penalty taking into consideration any adverse remarks or past record then it is incumbent upon it to inform the delinquent employee about any extenuating or aggravating circumstances and seek explanation from the delinquent workman.
(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM)
(7 of 8) [SAW-377/2021] Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Mysore vs. K. Manche Gowda; (1964) AIR SC 506 held as under:-
"Under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to pove that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive. The said opportunity is to be a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action:"
The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539, observing that the appellant authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, without bringing it to the notice of the appellant. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
"The Courts below and the statutory authorities failed to appreciate that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally the charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least he should be informed of the same at this stage of the show cause notice, before imposing the punishment."
In the considered opinion of this Court since the appellant- writ petitioner had been informed by the disciplinary authority vide charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020 that past conduct would be considered while holding disciplinary proceedings, it was for the appellant-writ petitioner to submit explanation disclosing mitigating circumstances which compelled the appellant-writ (Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM) (8 of 8) [SAW-377/2021] petitioner to remain absent from services without sanctioned leave in consonance with the principles of natural justice and Clause 21.2(p) of the Standing Orders. It is open for appellant-writ petitioner to show that the punishments had already been imposed upon him for alleged misconduct and the punishments had been served satisfactorily.
Even otherwise challenge to a charge sheet can only be entertained when it has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings or when it has been issued in wholesale violation of the principles of natural justice. The delinquent employee instead of seeking interference at the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet should submit reply/explanation to the competent authority and wait for the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
In light of above discussion, the order dated 12.05.2021, passed by learned Single Bench does not call for any interference.
In the result, the special appeal writ is dismissed being devoid of merit.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Ravi Khandelwal
(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:21:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)