UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANIL.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unyielding Administration, still hesitant to shake off the lingering hang over of the bygone British Raj and a belligerent work force, unable to comprehend the principle of "non-violence", on which was built the device of political and social struggle termed "Sathyagraha", has contributed vastly to the development of the law of disciplinary action in this Country. The appeals before us by the Administration and a delinquent employee has its genesis in a 'dharna' and 'relay fast' organized by the employees' association, against the Administration, which as is wont to happen slipped into untoward incidents, on which charges of misconduct were leveled against many employees; the subject delinquent being eventually dismissed from service. Looking at the cause, we cannot but comment; a 'relay fast', is a mockery of the 'devastating tactic (a fast) in a land ravaged by cyclic famine'(sic-Freedom at Midnight), employed by the "Mahatma" to bring the Empire to its knees or rather to prompt them to take to their heels. It is a violence to the very concept, when those participating in these 'relay fasts'; who are privileged with a decent employment, subsequently ensconce themselves in their homes to gorge; in a still undernourished Country teeming with unemployed.

(2.) On facts here, we have an employee, who is alleged to have unauthorisedly entered into a Voucher Level Computer (VLC) room situated in the second floor of the rear building in the Accountant General's office and attempted to vandalize and remove a surveillance camera fitted on its walls, proceeded against departmentally. Inter alia the presence of the employee beyond office hours, is alleged to be a misconduct being against the provisions of the Manual of General Procedure ('Manual'; hereafter), which prohibits any member of the staff to remain in the office premises after 7.30 p.m., without specific permission. The presence is admitted, but justified due to the 'dharna' and 'relay fast' carried on by the employee's association in which very many staff participated. The delinquent vehemently refutes the allegation of having entered the office building or attempting to vandalize or remove the surveillance camera. The employee asserts that the action against him is the continuation of victimization unleashed on the striking employees, by the Administration. The Administration, on the other hand, holds aloft the flag of discipline and accuses the employees of having overstepped the limits of a peaceful agitation; an oxymoron on its terms.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. T.A.Shaji appearing for the delinquent employee, argues that the charges themselves are vague and none of the allegations stood proved. The charges were on the basis of the provisions in a Manual, which cannot lead to a disciplinary proceeding or imposition of the major penalty of dismissal, as was done in this case. The learned Senior Counsel would take us through the order of the Inquiry Officer (IO) as also the Disciplinary Authority to allege that the findings smack of pre-judgment and an uncalled for enthusiasm to find the delinquent guilty of the charges alleged. The findings are not supported by evidence and in the context of irrelevant material having been relied on, the entire process is vitiated. It is pointed out that the major penalty of dismissal imposed on the delinquent, deprives him of his livelihood; when neither the charges leveled or the evidence adduced can be said to have proved the allegations or be adequate to impose such a major penalty. The delinquent was a person of unblemished service of 22 years and he was one of the scapegoats, targeted for dismissal, as a part of the reactionary measures against the employees enmasse.