CH SATYANARAYANA Vs. DOCK LABOUR BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a watchman. He who had been residing in the Board's quarters No. T. 1/13 at Kailasapuram, went to quarters No. T/1/14 on 1st October 1984 at about 8.30 p.m. and put off the fan switch and bent the fan blades in the said quarters and he also went to T. 1/15 quarters and called out the inmates by kicking on the door, and thereby he caused damage to D.L.B. Property. Accordingly he was charged for the above misconduct. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. On enquiry it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner has committed the said misconduct. As a result, in the impugned order dated 24th May 1985, a punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect was awarded. Assailing the legality thereof, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The contention of Sri V. Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Staff (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules") do not provide any misconduct as regards the behaviour of an employee of the Dock Labour Board outside the office hours to be a misconduct. Therefore, though the conduct of the petitioner may be unbecoming, still it is not a misconduct. Thereby the petitioner is not liable to punishment and the same is without any authority of law.

(3.) Sri. K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents, sought support for this order on the premise that clause 25 of the Rules provides that in the absence of any specific rules, C.C.S. Conduct Rules would mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the first respondent. Clause 3(iii) of the C.C.S. Conduct Rules provides that the Government servant shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Clause 20 of the Allotment Residences Rules 1977 provides that where the conduct of an allottee is found to be improper of conducts himself in a manner which in the opinion of the Chairman is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmonious relations with his neighbours, apart from the cancellation of his allotment, he is liable to the disciplinary action. The petitioner acted in an unbecoming manner by damaging the property of the neighbours. In fact the property belongs to the respondents, and it is, thereby, an unbecoming conduct on the part of the petitioner amenable to the disciplinary jurisdiction, and the misconduct has been found by the disciplinary authority and punishment was awarded accordingly. There is no manifest error warranting interference or lack of jurisdiction to impose the punishment.