Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petitioner joined the service of the undertaking in March, 1977 as a Clerk. In April, 1 992 she was promoted to the post of Officer Grade AG VIII and was posted in Materials Management Department. In October, 1996, she was transferred from that Department to the Traffic Department as Office Assistant in the Ghatkopar Depot. Soon thereafter, she was again transferred in December, 1996 to Traffic Department at Anik Depot. The petitioner has specifically averred that till March, 1997 she had cordial relationship with her superiors. She has further specifically averred that from March, 1997, her relationship got strained on account of certain events which took place in her family and she was brought in trouble at the instigation of one Shri Madhav Vinayak Vaidya, an Ex Internal Auditor of the undertaking who happened to be a close friend of Shri Madhav A. Shanbhag, the Additional General Manager of the undertaking. She has alleged that the said Shri Vaidya was a witness in the forged and fraudulent will made by her father-in-law, who was Ex Chief Personnel Officer of the undertaking. She has alleged that the said Shri Vaidya was directly involved into the various civil litigations and criminal proceedings and was subjected to criminal prosecution on account of his involvement and connections with the forgery of the Will. She has also alleged that Shri Vaidya had approached Shri Shanbhag to prevail upon the petitioner to withdraw the criminal complaint against him. She has also averred that Shri Shanbhag had called the petitioner and tried to persuade her to withdraw the complaint. Since it was a serious matter relating to the family and the family property, the petitioner expressed her inability to do anything of the kind as per the wishes of the Additional General Manager, Shri Shanbhag. The petitioner has, therefore, alleged that on account of her not acceding to the request of Shri Shanbhag, he was very much annoyed and was displeased with her and, thereafter, her stars in the service started frowning upon her. According to the petitioner, she was deliberately subjected to the harassment which finally resulted in the extreme punishment of dismissal from employment on the ground of her alleged absentism and unauthorised leave for a total of 15 days on different occasions. The petitioner has taken very serious exception to the extreme punishment of dismissal, being totally mala fide and colourable exercise of powers vested in the employer. She has alleged ulterior motives against the management of the undertaking while imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal for the alleged act of her unauthorised absence for a total number of 8 1/2 days. According to the petitioner she had applied for leave and that she was not away from the employment without any intimation.

17. As far as the question of mala fides and ulterior motives imputed by the petitioner on the Additional General Manager, Shri Shanbhag is concerned, it is possible that some such events might have taken place. The petitioner has not made any vague or ambiguous allegations in respect of mala fides or ulterior motives. She has named both of them and has given sufficient particulars to be able to consider the charge of mala fides. It is significant to note that none of them has filed affidavit to deny or to refute the serious allegations against them. It was for Shri Shanbhag to have denied on oath that Shri Vaidya had never tried to persuade him to pressurise the petitioner in any manner and that he had tried so with her. The factual foundation of the allegations have remained not shaken or challenged. There is no dispute that Shri Vaidya, being Internal Auditor of the undertaking, was an accused person in the case pending before the Criminal Court in respect of Will of the father-in-law of the petitioner. It is also possible that he might have tried to use the good offices of Shri Shanbhag to have a compromise or compounding of the offices alleged against him. He has also not filed his affidavit to rebut the charge of the petitioner. In such cases there cannot be any concrete or documentary evidence. We have to infer from the circumstances. The allegations of mala fides get good support if we consider the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has put in service from 1977 onwards. By and large her record has been good barring a few infractions in the past. The petitioner could not be said to be a bad officer as the administration itself had considered her to be fit for promotion and had promoted her. This aspect, however, also shows that when she was promoted the administration had acted in good faith and bona fide without bearing any grudge of any nature against the petitioner in respect of her past record. It is not mere coincidence that the petitioner felt that she was being subjected to harassment, no sooner she declined to withdraw the criminal case against Shri Vaidya who held a high position of Internal Auditor in the undertaking and who could wield some influence on Shri Shanbhag. the Additional General Manager to get himself out of the clutches of the criminal proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner has not complained of any harassment or ill-treatment or an act of victimisation prior to 1997. Somewhere in the month of March, 1997, the events accelerated up which ended in the petitioner's dismissal, for the reason of her refusing to withdraw the allegations against Shri Vaidya by not heeding the pressure of the Additional General Manager. Since there was nothing found against the conduct of the petitioner, no other allegations could be made against the petitioner, I do not condone her proceeding on leave when she was specifically told to complete the work which was of importance. She ought to have completed the work on 7th April, 1997 and she ought not to have taken leave on 9th April upto 12th April, 1997 which she took on the ground of court, case. As far as her remaining at home for the purpose of taking care of her school going son from 3 1st March, 1997 for five days, we have to take a very lenient view particularly in respect of the class of the working ladies who are to shoulder the double responsibilities and who have to play a duel role in the life. As a mother it was her duty to take full care and to protect her son during the delicate examination period. Had she known in advance the examination dates, she would have surely made an application before taking such leave. She being a responsible officer, 1 believe her statement that she had telephoned her superior for the purpose of leave. We cannot presrime that people always behave irresponsibly or that they turn bad over night. Her past record has been by and large good. She had never been disobedient or negligent in her working in the past. Very often in life people get caught in such a vulnerable situation which compel them to act in a particular manner which surely goes against the simple working of the administration. We, therefore, have to bear in mind that law is not life. Besides, it is not that she had remained absent for a very long period without, any intimation or without getting her leave sanctioned. She has surely taken care to apply for leave even after her absence without intimation. We have to be more considerate as far as the working women are concerned. We must appreciate that they are always required to work for two establishments viz., office and house. Furthermore, the unfortunate circumstances of the Will of her father-in-law placed her in a very crucial situation where she was required to litigate in Criminal Court. We cannot lose sight of a mandatory rule that municipal servant is permitted to remain away from duty upto a period of five years. In the present ease, it is only question of 81/2 days assuming that she was guilty of such an act of misconduct. In my opinion, the punishment of dismissal inflicted by the respondent in such circumstances is harsh and shockingly disproportionate which can be covered under the term "legal victimisation" as evolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Colour-Cham Ltd. v. Alaspurkar A. L. and Ors. . In the context of the industrial jurisprudence the Kernel of the term victimisation has remained the same as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Workmen as under :-