RATANSINH SODANSINH SISIDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 13-9-1992 in Reference (I.T.C.) No. 44 of 1991 whereby the petitioner-workman is awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 for dismissal which came to be recorded by Employer, the Western Railway, Union of India after holding a domestic inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a fitter with the respondent-railway. In view of an incident which occurred on 16-12-1986, a departmental inquiry was instituted against the petitioner for serious misconduct, misbehaviour and attempting physical assault on a superior officer.

(2.) It was alleged against the petitioner in the domestic inquiry that on 16-12- 1986, while he was working as a pipe fitter, in the morning at about 9 O'clock, he entered into the office of the superior officer Mr. B. L. Kapadia and at that time, other two officers, viz., M/s. Keshavlal and Kaushik were present. As per the statement of imputation against the petitioner, he then started shouting loudly and indecently at the officer Mr. Kapadia who was then working as Assistant Mechanical Engineer at Ahmedabad. Subsequently, the petitioner also threatened to strangulate him and even physically attempted to do so until he was prevented and separated from Kapadia by the said officers Keshavlal and Kaushik. Thus, as per the case of the department, the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct, misbehaviour and attempting physical attempt on the superior who was a gazetted officer. The respondent-authority appointed Inquiry Officer who upon an inquiry held the petitioner guilty of the said charges. Report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and dismissal order came to be recorded against the petitioner on 25-8-1989. The petitioner initially moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, but the same was withdrawn as a Reference was filed by the Union. Therefore, upon Reference No. 44 of 1991, the case came to be decided by a judgment and award dated 30-9-1992 by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the Reference is adjudicated and while maintaining the order of dismissal, however, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 to the petitioner-workman for dismissal which is precisely under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner raised the following contentions that : (i) the impugned order of dismissal is passed in the domestic inquiry without issuance of second show-cause notice in breach of provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India; (ii) copy of the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner which is fatal; (iii) officer of the respondent - B. L. Kapadia is not examined; (iv) the petitioner-workman came to be acquitted in the criminal case in connection with the same charge; (v) the inquiry conducted against the petitioner is illegal and invalid for non-supply of material documents; (vi) no effective cross-examination was permitted, and (vii) the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner is not a protected workman is improper and illegal.