NEHRU SCIENCE CENTRE Vs. G.K. MALIYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the Awards dtd. 22/5/2003, 13/5/2008 and 7/8/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai. By the said Awards, the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the respondent and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service to his original post of Painter Technician, together with payment of back wages to the extent of 50% for the period commencing from 22/2/2000 till the date of actual reinstatement.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ petition, as set out by the petitioner, are that the respondent came to be appointed as a Senior Mechanic with the petitioner by an appointment letter dtd. 23/2/1982. Clause 10 of the said appointment letter specifically stipulated that the services of the respondent were transferable and that he could be posted to any Museum, Centre or Kendra under the administrative control of the petitioner, as and when required. In pursuance of the aforesaid condition of service, the respondent was transferred from Mumbai to Bhopal by an order dtd. 21/6/1990. Consequent upon such transfer, his name was deleted from the muster roll of the Mumbai office of the petitioner by Office Memorandum dtd. 22/6/1990. Despite issuance of repeated memoranda calling upon the respondent to report for duty at Bhopal, the respondent failed and neglected to comply with the said directions, thereby remaining absent from duty at the transferred place.

(3.) In view of the continued non-compliance on the part of the respondent, a charge-sheet dtd. 27/11/1997 came to be issued to him, containing four distinct articles of charge, namely: that the respondent had refused to report at the place of transfer and thereby disobeyed lawful orders issued by his superiors; that he had remained absent from the place of transfer for a prolonged period of nearly seven years without obtaining leave or furnishing any intimation, thus conducting himself in a manner unbecoming of an employee; that he had attempted to interfere with and influence the transfer order by exerting political pressure, in contravention of Rule 20 of the applicable Service Rules; and that he had participated in a morcha, thereby indulging in acts amounting to indiscipline and insubordination. The respondent submitted his reply to the charge- sheet on 2/12/1997. The said reply, however, did not disclose any cogent or tenable explanation to the charges levelled against him and, instead, consisted largely of allegations directed against the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The respondent participated in the enquiry proceedings, though he raised objections which were found to be untenable and were rejected by the Inquiry Officer by a reasoned order. The respondent was extended adequate opportunity to defend himself, including the facility of a translator for translating the proceedings and recording of evidence in Marathi. The enquiry proceedings bear the signature of the respondent. The contention raised by the respondent that documents were supplied to him for the first time during the enquiry is not borne out by the record and stands contradicted, particularly in light of the detailed reply submitted by him to the charge-sheet.