MANAGEMENT OF NDMC Vs. V P KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 28.11.1997 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. I, whereby the Tribunal held that punishment awarded to the respondent No.2/workman was unjustified.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent was working as a peon with the Child Welfare Centre Kidwai Nagar. While on duty, he disobeyed the orders of the doctor and refused to carry on the instructions. He was told that vaccines should be carried by him in vaccines bags and not in open. Instead of complying with the instructions, he told the doctor that it was not his job to bring vaccines and he would continue to handle the vacancies as before otherwise he would prefer that he be transferred. He was suspended on 6.1.1992. He was served with a charge sheet about this misconduct on 6.3.1992. His reply being unsatisfactory. A penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years was imposed on him vide order dated 4.6.1992 without holding an enquiry. The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal in following terms:

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the management led evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman. It was argued by the management that the punishment awarded to the workman was minor punishment and holding of an enquiry under Rule 16 of CCS and CCA Rules, was not necessary. The Tribunal observed that the disciplinary authority could dispense with the holding of an enquiry only after giving reasons as to why the holding of an inquiry was not necessary. Since no reasons were recorded as to why it was not necessary to hold an inquiry, there was no proper application of mind. Therefore, awarding of punishment without holding an inquiry was bad. The Tribunal further held that the order of punishment was also bad on the ground that the punishing authority failed to examine the question whether the workman's plea that it was not a part of his job to bring vacancies, was correct or not. The Tribunal found that one of the witnesses had stated that it was the job of a pharmacist to handle the medicines. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the punishment awarded to the workman, withholding his two increments, was bad and unjust.