S PRATAP REDDY Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the award of the Labour Court which upheld the order of dismissal from service passed against him by the management. While the petitioner was serving as Assistant Grade-I in the first respondent company, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 17-12-1983 to the effect that he failed to check and scrutinise the L.T.C. claims properly and passed claims of some employees knowing them to be fraudulent which resulted in payments to employees for which they are not entitled and thereby caused pecuniary loss to the company. It was further alleged that he had received Rs.1836.00 from one Satyanarayana as illegal gratification for having got his L.T.C. bill passed by his colleague Chalapathi JKao for Rs,3036/-knowing fully well that Sri Satyanarayana had already availed L.T.C. for 1982-83. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry into the said charges. After conducting enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges to be proved. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and the explanation of the petitioner, he was dismissed from service on 18-5-1985. Questioning the said order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was vitiated as no committee of enquiry was appointed as per the Standing Orders. The Labour Court, therefore, permitted the management to lead evidence to justify the action taken against the petitioner. On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the Labour Court upheld the action of the management in dismissing the petitioner.

(2.) Sri M.V. Rama Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought to assail the award of the Labour Court by contending that the charge-sheet was issued by the Manager (Finance) who was not competent to issue the charge-sheet. According to Standing Order 23(a), the Head of the Department concerned is the competent authority to issue the chargesheet and to appoint the Enquiry Officer. The Deputy General Manager (Finance), who is the Head of the Finance Department alone is competent to Issue the chargesheet and appoint the Enquiry officer. As the charge-sheet was issued by the Finance Manager, who is not the Head of the Department, the charge-sheet is illegal and void and all the consequent proceedings are also null and void. * He further contended that as per Standing Order 23(e) the dismissal order can be passed only by the Head of the Department but in the instant case the same was passed by the Manager (Personnel) who is not competent to pass the order. As such the order of dismissal is illegal and void. He finally submitted that, in any case, the extreme punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. He also submitted that several other employees, who were similarly charged, have been let off with comparatively minor punishments and the petitioner has been singled out for the extreme punishment of dismissal which amounts to hostile discrimination.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Ravindranath, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent sought to justify the order of dismissal and also the award of the Labour Court. He contended that as per the Standing Orders, even a Manager is competent to issue the charge-sheet and appoint the Enquiry Officer. Even otherwise, since the Labour court gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and on a consideration of the evidence adduced, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges have been established and that the punishment of dismissal also is proper, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.