Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. We have heard Sri Kasturi, learned Senior advocate for the appellant and Sri S.V. Shastry, learned advocate for the respondent. We have perused the records.

5. It was contended by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant that, learned single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition without noticing, that fact, whether any prejudice was caused to the respondent because of non supply of list of witnesses and. documents along with the charge sheet. It was contended that unless prejudice is shown to have occasioned on account of not making available such a list at the threshold, mechanically the proceedings cannot be. faulted. Learned senior counsel in support of the submission referred to and relied upon case of Delhi Clothes and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Dutt reported at 1972-I-LLJ-172 (SC). Learned senior counsel would contend that there is no provision under the Service Rules of the appellant, for permitting the assistance of an advocate in disciplinary enquiry and that the respondent was allowed the assistance of a co-employee which was not availed by him. It was submitted that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It was contended that by series of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that permitting the assistance of an advocate in domestic enquiry is not a ritual and unless the standing orders of the establishment provides for it. Learned senior counsell support of the submission relied upon the case reported at Volume 82 FJR 213. Learned senior counsel would further contend, that it is a case of admission of the guilt by the workman which can be seen from Exhibit M7. It was contended that Exhibit M7 could not have been brushed aside by the learned single Judge. Learned senior counsel by taking us through the proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry contended that there was no justification for the learned single Judge to have allowed the writ petition, much less, remanded the case for fresh disposal to the Industrial Tribunal. Learned senior counsel would contend that the learned single Judge has misdirected himself in the matter of passing the order allowing the writ petition and hence interference is called for.

6. Per contra, Sri. S.V. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent strenuously urged that it is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice, in that, the list of witnesses and documents pertaining to the disciplinary enquiry were not furnished along with the charge sheet, in view of which, the respondent could not effectively defend himself. It was contended that Exhibit M7 is a document which was taken by adopting coercive methods and as such, the same ought not to have been considered much less relied upon to hold the employee guilty either by the enquiry officer or by the employer much less by the Industrial Tribunal. Learned Counsel would contend that since the charge levelled against the respondent was grave in nature, refusal of permission to take assistance of an advocate in the disciplinary enquiry, has made the enquiry' proceedings a farce, which was not noticed and appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal, in which, on proper consideration, the learned single Judge was justified in holding the disciplinary enquiry is not fair, proper and valid. Learned Counsel contended that in the background of the case, the order made by the learned single Judge does not call for interference. Alternatively learned Counsel would contend that it is a case of no evidence and the misconduct alleged, has not been proved in the disciplinary enquiry and hence the appellant was not justified in dismissing the respondent from service.

In this connection we would like to inform you that the Management Representative is not a Law graduate, and also service Rules of our Company do not permit us to allow you to take assistance of an advocate as defence representative in the Enquiry. As such it is not possible for us to accord to your request of taking assistance of advocate in the Enquiry against you.
However, you can take assistance from any of your Co-employee in the Enquiry Proceedings.
Though respondent was allowed to be represented by a co-employee, he has not chosen to avail the services of a co-employee. Respondent himself is a graduate. During the course of disciplinary enquiry, he has availed sufficient opportunity, even on the ground of taking assistance from outside as well as consulting his advocate in the matter of cross-examination of witnesses in the enquiry. Opportunity to consult an advocate or person of the choice of respondent, has been allowed by the enquiry officer. Unless the Service Rules of the appellant had conferred the right of representation through a counsel or the management representative was a law graduate, the claim cannot be entertained. In view of the enunciation of law by the Apex Court in the case of Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), in our view there is no merit in the contention putforth on behalf of the respondent. Inasmuch as, reasonable opportunity has been granted to enable the respondent to consult his advocate and thereafter the respondent has cross-examined MWs.1 to 3 and has made the submissions in the enquiry, in our view there is no violation of principles of natural justice. In the case of Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.' (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows 1993-I-LLJ-907 at p. 914:

17. Enquiry Officer, by taking into consideration the evidence of MWs.1 to 3, the documents marked as Exhibits M7, M10, M11, M12 and M13, also the two adding rolls of March 2, 1988 and March 14, 1988 produced by the respondent, has arrived at the conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent, as established and respondent was held to be guilty.

18. Industrial Tribunal on re-consideration and reassessment of evidence of MWs. 1 to 3, and the documentary evidence exhibited during the course of disciplinary enquiry, has held that the respondent is guilty of misappropriation of the amount. Taking into account the gravity of the proved misconduct, it is held that the question of exercise of discretion under Section 11-A of 'the Act' does not arise and viewed from any angle, order of dismissal passed by the appellant is proper.