Gujarat High Court
Vipulbhai Mansukhbhai Bhatt vs Medical Director on 12 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16423 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
VIPULBHAI MANSUKHBHAI BHATT
Versus
MEDICAL DIRECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 12/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Rajkot, in Reference (LCR) No.27 of 2016, dated 28.11.2023, whereby the Reference filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected, and the order of termination passed by the respondent institute was confirmed.
2. This petition is filed with the following facts:
2.1. The present petitioner was serving as an Assistant Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined Laboratory Technician since 10.04.1995.
Subsequently, he was promoted as a Laboratory Assistant and thereafter as a Senior Laboratory Technician. The petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.20,350/- per month. The respondent-institute operates a Cancer Hospital in the Saurashtra region.
2.2. On 27.11.2014, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, which he duly replied to. However, as his reply was not found satisfactory, the he was suspended from the service during the pendency of the departmental inquiry. Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it was held that the charges levelled against the present petitioner were proved and consequently, the order of the termination was passed on 27.10.2015 with immediate effect. The petitioner raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer and upon failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the learned labour court, Rajkot, where it was registered as Reference (LCR) No.27 of 2016.
2.3. The present petitioner filed a statement of claim, narrating the facts as well as explaining the charges levelled against the him. In response the respondent- Institute has filed written statement and also examined the witnesses as well as produced the documentary evidence on record to substantiate the charges against the present petitioner. After considering the evidence placed on record, learned labour court has rejected the Reference filed by the Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined present petitioner, which is the subject matter of consideration before this Court.
3. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits that the petitioner served with respondent-hospital for 25 years, and except for one instance, his services were over all blotless. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits that the key person, namely, Mr.Gupta, who was managing the affairs of the hospital, was operating a parallel laboratory through his family and diverting the reports, which is to be carried out by the respondent-institute and taking the monetary benefits. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits as the petitioner objected to this malpractice, he was victimized, and consequently, the so- called charge-sheet was issued against him . Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru further submits petitioner was subjected to discrimination, as one Ms. Sindhuben, a co- employee, who was also charge-sheeted for a similar offense, was reinstated upon tendering an apology, whereas the petitioner was terminated without any justification. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits that the charge levelled against the present petitioner mainly with regard to the operating of the machines for taking out the reports which was handled by the different persons in different shift. As the petitioner was not the sole operator of the said machine, he cannot be held responsible for the alleged deletion of data, which was Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined extracted by experts. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits that inquiry officer has also violated the principles of natural justice as after affording the opportunity to cross examine and after granting the time, the stage of the cross examination was closed. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits that as the material witness namely Mr.Gupta, who is the main culprit was not cross examined by the present petitioner, the real fact could not be brought on record and the inquiry officer held liable to the present petitioner for the alleged charges and ultimately dismissed from the service. Learned advocate Mr.Rajyaguru submits that without considering the same, the learned Reference Court has awarded the Reference against the present petitioner, therefore, same is required to be interfered with and the petition is required to be allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments made by the learned advocate and the detailed reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court it transpires that following were the charges which were levelled against the present petitioner in the departmental inquiry:
આરોપ નં નં.૧ તા.૧૬-૧૦-૨૦૧૪ ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે પ નંર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેના આશરે ૫:૧૫ મીનીટે સસ્ ં થાની જા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી સાથે લાવેલ આશરે ૩ થી ૪ સેમ્પલ રન કરેલ હતાં અને તે અંગેના ડેટા થી ૪ ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે સેમ્પ નંલ રન કરેલ હતાં અને તે અંગન ે ા ડેટા તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે રેકડ&માંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે .
આરોપ નં નં.ર તા.૯-૧૦-૨૦૧૪ ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે પ નંર હતાં તેમ છતાં તમો બપ નંોરના આશરે ૧:૩ થી ૪ સેમ્પલ રન કરેલ હતાં અને તે અંગેના ડેટા ૦ મીનીટે સસ્ં થાની જા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી સાથે લાવેલ આશરે ૩ થી ૪ સેમ્પલ રન કરેલ હતાં અને તે અંગેના ડેટા સેમ્પ નંલ રન કરેલ હતાં અને સસ્ ં થાના સેમ્પ નંલના સીરીયલ નંબરના ડુ પ્લીકેટ નંબર આપ નંી તમારા સેમ્પ નંલ રન કરીને તેનો ડેટા તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે રેકડ&માંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે .
આરોપ નં નં.૩ થી ૪ સેમ્પલ રન કરેલ હતાં અને તે અંગેના ડેટા તા.૧-૭-૨૦૧૪ ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે થી તા.૧૬-૧૦-૨૦૧૪ ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે સુધીનો રેકડ& તપ નંાસતા જ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે ે તે દિ/વસે Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે ફરજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે બજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેવેલ છે તે દિ/વસો માં અસખ્ ં ય વખત તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે અજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી ી વ્યકિકતઓના સેમ્પ નંલો તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે ચકાસેલ છે અને તે અંગન ે ો ડેટા તથા દિવગતો તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે રેકડ& માંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે .
આરોપ નં નં.૪ ના રોજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે તમોને અગાઉ પણ તમારી ગેરશીસ્ત બદલ આરોપનામું આપવામાં આવેલ પ નંણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી તમારી ગેરશીસ્ત બ/લ આરોપ નંનામું આપ નંવામાં આવેલ છે અને સ/ર આરોપ નંનામામાં અન્ય આરોપ નંો સાથે આ રીતે તમારા અંગત હીત માટે અજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી ી વ્યકિકતઓના સેમ્પ નંલ તમોએ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે તપ નંાસેલ તે સબ ં ે નો ં ધ આરોપ નં પ નંણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી હતો જ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે ે પ નંુરવાર થયેલ અને સ/રહું તમારી ગેરકિશસ્ત બ/લ તમારા બે ઈજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરેફા તે વખતે રોકવામાં આવેલ અને ભદિવષ્યમાં આવી વત&ણ બહાર લેબોરેટરીમાં આવેલ હતાં અને તમારી ક ું નહી કરવા સુચના આપ નંવામા આવેલ હોવા છતાં તમો એ રેકર્ડમાંથી ડીલીટ કરી નાંખેલ છે આજ તમો રજા પર હતા તેમ છતાં તમો સાંજના આશરે પ નં્રકારની ગેરકિશસ્ત ફરીથી આચરેલ છે .
6. The legality and validity of the departmental inquiry were challenged by the present petitioner, which was rejected by the learned labour Court by way of passing the separate order, which was not further challenge and thus attained the finality. Therefore, the learned labour Court, in the Reference proceedings, has examined the proportionate of the punishment which was imposed against the charges which were levelled against the petitioner. The learned Reference court has scrutinized each charge in detail and has given separate findings for not believing the case of the present petitioner more particularly, relying on the documentary evidence, which is in nature of the laboratory test report, CCTV footages and all other documentary evidences, which are considered by the inquiry officer.
6.1. The contention of the petitioner if one would examine then it is on the ground of victimization. It is contended by the learned advocate that as Mr.Gupta, who is the Head of the Department was operating a parallel laboratory and to gain the monetary benefit Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined which was objected by the present petitioner, he was victimized. During the cross examination of the present petitioner, it was brought on record that the family members of the present petitioner were also running a parallel laboratory and previously also the petitioner was chargesheeted for the identical charge for taking the report of the patients who are not registered at Hospital and sending outside of the instituted. The said charge was proved in the year 2007 and the present petitioner on accepting the charge was levelled with minor punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect. It also comes on the record that at that point of time the assurance was given for not repeating the said mistake in future. In addition to that no any material brought by the present petitioner to establish that as the petitioner has objected the practice of Mr.Gupta to misuse the reputation of the institute, he was victimized.
6.2. In addition to the same, it was also contended by the petitioner that one co-employee Ms.Sindhuben Vyas, who was also chargesheeted, was subsequently exonerated and she was reinstated. However, the learned Reference court has recorded the evidence of said Ms.Sindhuben Vyas below Exhibit 58 which reflects that present petitioner was on leave for the period from 01.07.2014 to 16.10.2014 and during that period, he visited the Laboratory of the respondent-
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined institute and has taken three to four samples, which were run in the machine, the data was deleted and the evidence of this witness was further supported with the CCTV footages, system generated audit logs, and the registered copy. It is submitted by the learned advocate that as the said witness was under the influence of said Mr.Gupta therefore, she has given false evidence against the present petitioner. Even if, that contention would be accepted for the sake of acceptance then also the CCTV footage is record as well as the documentary evidence which are in the nature of system generated audit log from where these three to four samples which were processed and deleted from the machine were subsequently retrieved, support the evidence recorded below Exhibit-58.
7. The present petitioner has also accepted that he has visited the Laboratory, but the explanation was given that for taking the report of his father, the machines were used. However, subsequently on demanding the details with regard to the illness of the father and the report, no satisfactory explanation was offered.
8. Considering all evidences in detail, the learned Reference Court has awarded the Reference against the present petitioner. This Court is of the view that if there was a justification for punishment imposed, the tribunal had no power to interfere with the kind of or severity of punishment except extra ordinary circumstances. The Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined interference was justified only when punishment was only severe and out of proportionate of fault, but which was no reasonable employer would have imposed or was so harsh and oppressive that the learned Reference court considered the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization on unfair labour practice.
9. In the instance case, as there was a past misconduct of a similar nature, which was resulted into minor punishment with the expectation of improvement in future and the evidence of the material witnesses along with ample documentary evidence, learned Reference Court has rightly rejected the Reference, in the opinion of this Court.
10. So far as the breach of principles of natural justice, which was alleged by the present petitioner is concerned, it transpires from the record that the inquiry officer has concluded its evidence on 08.06.2015. Thereafter, the opportunity to cross examine the witness No.1 was given and was posted on 16.06.2015, the said opportunity was not availed by the present petitioner and therefore, stage of the cross examination was closed.
11. This Court is of the view that when the reasonable opportunity was given to the workman and the inquiry was fair, proper and valid, the decision must be based on the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties during the inquiry proceedings. Apart from the evidence of said Mr.Gupta, the reliance on the testimony of Ms.Vyas, the Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16423/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/02/2025 undefined CCTV footage of the main gate with the security, as well as the petitioner's own admission that when he was on leave, he took the report and subsequently deleted from the machine is sufficient to prove the guilt of the present petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court has rightly dismissed the Reference, and this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned award.
12. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:07:44 IST 2025