Karnataka High Court
Bharat Tissus Private Limited vs Sri H C Ramesh on 23 November, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.377/2017 (SC - ST)
BETWEEN
BHARAT TISSUS PRIVATE LIMITED
REGD. & HO: NO. 7/1, 1ST FLOOR K.H.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRO SHYAM SUNDAR GOENKA
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI
SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. SRI H.C.RAMESH
MAJOR,
S/O SRI CHINNAPPA,
H.HOSAHALLI,
HENNAGARA POST,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.
2. THE CHAIRMAN
STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED
CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES
NO. 14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING,
2
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO
CONFERENCING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO NOTICE
DATED 11.11.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEX-L ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the notice dated 11.11.2016, issued by the second respondent - State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the proceedings thereof, directing him to appear in response to a complaint lodged by the first respondent.
32. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are that, the first respondent was appointed as an Operator Trainee on 31.01.2002. On 13.03.2009, the petitioner indulged in violent acts with another co-employee which led to chaos in the factory and infighting. This act of the first respondent resulted in a charge sheet being issued and placing him under suspension for four days. On the first respondent tendering an apology, the first respondent was taken back to duties.
3. On 27.01.2010, an FIR came to be registered against the first respondent on a complaint registered by one Mr. Kuldeep Chandra Kohli, the General Manager of the Company on the event of certain miscreants attacking him. On such FIR, the first respondent was arrested and a criminal case was registered against him in C.C.No.1345/2010. Since 4 then, the first respondent remained absconding and did not attend the duties in the Company.
4. After about six years of his remaining outside employment, filed a complaint before the second respondent - State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short) seeking reinstatement and a compensation of Rs.25 lakhs. Upon issuance of notice, the petitioner filed his reply before the Commission and objected for entertaining the petition.
Despite clear objections, the Commission insisted upon the reinstatement of the first respondent and the compensation to be paid, which lead the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court in the subject writ petition.
5. Heard Smt. Roopasri S., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel for first 5 respondent and Sri C. Jagadish, learned counsel for second respondent and perused the material on record.
6. Admittedly, the commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the kind that has entertained in regard to the issue of reinstatement and compensation. The issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commission in such cases, need not detain this Court for long and would not require a deeper delving into the matter as the issue is not longer res integra with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ALL INDIA INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SC AND ST EMPLOYEES' WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606, has laid down as under:-
"3. The short question that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the Commission had the power to issue a direction in the nature of an interim 6 injunction? The appellant supports the letter dated 4-3-1993 of the Commission on the facts of the case which supposedly justify the passing of an interim direction of the type contained in the letter dated 4-3-1993. The appellant refers to Article 338, clauses (5) and (8) of the Constitution introduced by the Constitution (Sixty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1990 to argue that the Commission had power to requisition public record and hence it could issue directions as if it enjoyed powers like a civil court for all purposes. Further the appellant contends that even a single member of the Commission has every authority to pass a direction on behalf of the entire Commission and hence the High Court was wrong in expressing the view that a single member of the Commission could not have issued the direction contained in the letter dated 4-3-
1993. The appellant further contends that no writ would lie against an interim order of the Commission.
4. The basic question, however, is whether the Commission had the authority to issue the direction it did by the letter dated 4- 3-1993. Clauses (5) and (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution, which the appellant refers to as the source of the Commission's power, can be quoted for ready reference:
7"(5) It shall be the duty of the Commission--
(a) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under this Commission or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards;
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the
deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes;
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and any State;
(d) to present to the President, annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(e) to make in such report recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the Union or any State for the effective implementation of those safeguards 8 and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio-economic development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; and
(f) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare and development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as the President may, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, by rule specify.
(6) The President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the Union and the reasons for the non- acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.
(7) Where any such report, or any part thereof, relates to any matter with which any State Government is concerned, a copy of such report shall be forwarded to the Governor of the State who shall cause it to be laid before the Legislature of the State along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be 9 taken on the recommendations relating to the State and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.
(8) The Commission shall, while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause
(b) of clause 5, have all the powers of a civil court trying a suit and in particular in respect of the following matters, namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents;
(f) any other matter which the President may, by rule, determine."
5. It can be seen from a plain reading of clause (8) that the Commission has the power of the civil 10 court for the purpose of conducting an investigation contemplated in sub- clause (a) and an inquiry into a complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (5) of Article 338 of the Constitution.
6. Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (8) clearly indicate the area in which the Commission may use the powers of a civil court. The Commission has the power to summon and enforce attendance of any person from any part of India and examine him on oath; it can require the discovery and production of documents, so on and so forth. All these powers are essential to facilitate an investigation or an inquiry. Such powers do not convert the Commission into civil court."
(emphasis supplied) In terms of the above extracted judgment of the Apex Court it becomes unmistakably clear that the Commission is not empowered to adjudicate and decide disputes between the parties and pronounce its orders either interim or final. Following the 11 aforestated judgment of the Apex Court, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS V. NATIONAL COMMISSION SC AND ST reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3305, has held as follows:
"8. On the basis of pleadings and arguments advanced at the Bar the following two questions will arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
(ii) Whether the 2nd respondent is having power to issue the impugned directions dated 11.09.2006 to the 3rd respondent?""On Question No. 2
12. Article 338 of Constitution of India specifies for constitution of National Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST 12 employees' welfare association v. Union of India (Supra) held that "all the procedural powers of civil court given to the National Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint, under 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading, of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter".
13. In the instant case the third respondent-company issued articles of charges on 29.1.2004 to the fourth respondent stating that he indulged in corrupt practices, neglected to discharge his duties, acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company, indiscipline, made false statement before the superiors, 13 favoritism for pecuniary benefit etc. Since the reply of the fourth respondent was not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority initiated inquiry proceedings. On 13.6.2005 the inquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the fourth respondent as proved. The disciplinary authority after providing an opportunity to the fourth respondent passed an order of penalty on 15.12.2005 removing the-fourth respondent from service. Even the appeal filed by the fourth respondent came to be rejected vide order dated 27.1.2006 and the same had become final. When the matter stood at that stage, the fourth respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent-Commission stating that injustice has been caused to him. The second respondent being the member of the first respondent -- Commission visited the third respondent-company at Bangalore and held a meeting with the officers of the company. In the said meeting the second respondent directed the third respondent to conduct a fresh inquiry, to treat fourth respondent as deemed to have been continued in service and to pay him the salary and other allowances. By this impugned direction the second respondent virtually set asides the inquiry report dated 13.6.2005, order of penalty dated 15.12.2005 and the order of appellate 14 authority dated 27.1.2006. Therefore the impugned direction issued by the second respondent is without power and authority. Under Article 338 of the Constitution the second respondent is not empowered to set aside a concluded inquiry and the order of penalty and the order of appellate authority. Therefore the impugned direction issued by the second respondent is liable to be quashed.
(emphasis supplied) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the afore-extracted judgments, the very proceedings before the Commission was not maintainable.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The impugned notice bearing No.KARAA/AJAA/ABU/AYOGA/ITHARE/CR-
127/2016-17 dated 11.11.2016, issued by the 15 second respondent - Commission and the proceedings thereof, are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ