Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"That a demonstration was held on 3rd February, 1981 by some of the Employees of the Trade Fair Authority of India in office premises in which inflammatory speeches were made and defamatory slogans were shouted. Chairman and some other Officers of the TFAI were criticised. Shri S. D. Sharma was one of the speakers. A news item appeared to this effect in Patriot dated the 4th February, 1981. Shri S. D. Sharma's action comes under the definition of 'misconduct' as defined in the Trade Fair Authority of India Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This relates to Rule 5(6) regarding willful insubordination and Rule 5(21) regarding meetings, demonstrations, slogans shouting etc. within the premises of the Authority without the permission of the competent Authority i.e. Chairman and Rule 5(20). Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behavior.

27. On the failure to prove charge under Rule 5(21) of the Conduct Rules charge under rule 5(6) would automatically fall because if as found there was no lawful order prohibiting the holding of meeting, no question of willful or otherwise insubordination or disobedience of any such order arise.

28. With regard to charge under Rule 5(20) there can obviously be no act of subversive discipline or good behavior if as held already no fault can be found be holding meeting or demonstration. However, it was argued by Punjwani that raising of slogans of Muradabad are acts subversive of discipline. Now reference to Article of charge would show that general bald allegation has been made of having raised defamatory slogans and having made inflammatory speech. There was no specification at all of what defamatory slogans were raised. No document in support of this has been produced no record. The only evidence allegedly to come on the record about the defamatory slogans and inflammatory speech can therefore be spelt out from the evidence which R. K. Sen Gupta the only management witness on which the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have relied. He has though produced a document mentioning raising of slogans containing Muradabad, but in evidence he admits that he was ordered by the Managing Director/Chairman to prepare this document for the purpose of producing it before Mr Nair; the Enquiry Officer. Thus this document was specifically prepared. It is contemporaneous document. Now Mr. Gupta when he appeared as witness for evidence was specifically asked what abuses had been given; his answer was :

'Jo humse tukrayega choor choor ho jayega, Mohammed Yunus hai hai General Manager hai hai Tanashahi nahi chalegi Goonda garde nahi chalegi' This will show that the document which were produced by Sen Gupta showing that the slogans raised included slogans of Muradabad were not stated by him in his evidence when he appeared as a witness. We are saying this to emphasize that the documents like P-13 was specifically prepared under the instructions of the management as admitted by Sen Gupta. But this alleged slogans is not mentioned to have been raised when the witness gave evidence. Even P-13 documents mentioned about the points raised at the meeting which dealt with the normal grievances like seniority, recruitment and other discriminatory practice of the management and insistence for their demands to be accepted. Gathering was completely peaceful and dispersed peacefully as is the evidence of all the witness of the management. In this context there can be no basis or material to hold that the conduct or the demonstration was an act subversive of discipline and good behavior within Rule 5(20). The Enquiry Officer in his report has found that the witnesses produced by the petitioner have all stated that he did not make any inflammatory speech and also did not speak any defamatory slogans. The Enquiry Officer also found that as regards defamatory slogans and speeches it is very difficult to establish these charges fully on account of the very nature of the charges against the petitioner, no employee of authority is likely to give evidence against them. Though we do not in any way countenance the shouting of defamatory or inciting slogans but we cannot on the material on record hold that any such slogans especially of Muradabad were raised. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that the purpose of demonstration was subversive. The meeting was attended by 99% of the staff members which dispersed peacefully immediately when the lunch hour was over. It is possible that during the course of speech or demonstration some kind of slogans which may not be very proper may have been raised. But then this country recognize the holding of demonstration and though one may not be very happy that sometimes demonstrations may use a language which is not very polite one cannot also ignore that in the heat of movement and when mass of people are raising slogans in support of their demands and more so when they feel that for over two years the demands have not been fulfillled it is possible that some kind of harsh words and slogans may have been raised. But all this is a far cry from the charge which had necessarily to be proved before the petitioner can be held guilty these slogans and that their action was subversive of discipline. One or two slogans even if touching on the border of permissive parameters cannot be torn out of their context and considered in isolation. In order to appreciate the impact of any slogan the total overall picture must be kept in view and when we look at the picture it is peaceful meeting of the employees held in dignified manner raising their demands no doubt also shouting slogans, but mostly in support of their union and demands. The facts even as found by the Enquiry Officer do not in any manner prove the charges against the petitioner. It is no longer in dispute that under Art 226 of the Constitution the High Court has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion on the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal is based on no evidence, a writ of certiorari can issue (See Union of India v. H. C. Goel [1964-I L.L.J. 38]).