UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASHOKKUMAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 8-2-2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as CGIT for brevity) in Case No. 219/1993, whereby answering the reference made by the competent Government, in favour of the workman, the respondent herein, the award has been passed. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition in short are that the respondent, who was an employee of the petitioner working as Store keeper was charge sheeted on 18-7-1988 levelling against him certain charges of gross misconduct, mainly alleging by delay in counting of store item and keeping the item unaccounted for, for a considerable period. The other charge against the respondent No. 1 was tampering with Government documents, so as to unbecoming of a Government servant. After the receipt of the charge-sheet, the respondent No. 1 submitted that because of the work pressure, certain articles could not be accounted for, but there was no deliberate omission on the part of the respondent No. 1. No financial loss was caused to the employer. It was contended by him that the misconduct was not such that he should be punished in such an enquiry. However, without accepting the reply submitted by the respondent, after conducting the enquiry, a punishment of dismissal from the post was imposed on him. The reference against the dismissal was made before the appropriate Government and since the appropriate Government referred the matter to the CGIT, the case aforesaid was registered. The reference was made in the following manner:--

(2.) The respondent No. 1 filed his statement of claim and the petitioner also submitted the statement of claim. Affidavit in support of the statement of claims were filed by the petitioner. After completing the trial, the CGIT came to the conclusion that because of the work pressure on the respondent No. 1, if certain acts were done by him of not making entries in the store records or erasing an entry to make the store record straight, such a major punishment of dismissal from service should not have been imposed on him. The CGIT reached to the conclusion that if an admission was made by the respondent No. 1 in his reply, it was to be treated as a narration of correct facts with a view to explain the circumstances in which he has erased the entry made in the record. Thus, the CGIT reached to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was punished improperly and while answering the reference in favour of respondent No. 1 directed his reinstatement in service with all the backwages and other consequential benefits. This being so, the award passed by the CGIT is called in question in this writ petition.

(3.) It is, vehemently, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when specifically a finding was given that the departmental enquiry was properly conducted against the respondent No. 1, there was no question of interfering in the order of penalty and, therefore, the CGIT exceeded in exercise of its jurisdiction in answering the reference in favour of the respondent No. 1. As such, it is contended that the award passed by the CGIT is bad in law. Referring various case laws learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the settled position of law is examined, it would be clear that in such disciplinary proceedings, it was not open to the CGIT to interfere in the order of punishment and as such, the award is bad in law.