PRATAP KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of p. K. Banerjee, J. dated February 2, 1973 in C. R. No. 6032 (W) of 1968 whereby the Rule was discharged. The facts, according to the petitioner/appellant, are as follows: since about may 16, 1944 the petitioner had been working as Sircar in telegraph Workshops, Alipore and in course of his employment became involved in trade union activities. On May 23, 1960 he became the General Secretary of Posts and Telegraphs Industrial Workers Union. Because of trade union activities the petitioner incurred the displeasure of the authorities and they were anxious to get rid of the petitioner. The petitioner as such Secretary issued a strike notice with effect from July 11, 1960 for realisation of the legitimate demands of the workers and the strike was actually held during 11th to 16th July, 1960. In the meantime the government of India promulgated Essential services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960 declaring the strike illegal. Thereafter the authorities let loose the machineries of oppression on officials of the Union and the wrath of the administration mainly fell on the petitioner as the Secretary of the Union. Charge-sheets in continuous stream were issued against the petitioner-on June 11, 18, July 7, 15, 19, 25 of 1960. alleging various acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner. The petitioner ruled his statements of defence on July 23 and August 1, 1960 denying the allegations. Enquiry was held by the Manager himself on 3rd August and 12th august, 1960 in absence of the petitioner as the petitioner could not attend the enquiry for his preoccupations with the trade union activities and his prayer for adjournment of the hearing after 15th september, 1960 was rejected. The manager found the petitioner guilty of charges and on August 12, 1960 issued a second show cause notice proposing penalty of dismissal. The petitioner replied to the same reiterating his a allegations made earlier and submitted that the proposed action if taken would be in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. He further prayed that the manager should not be influenced by fabricated and malicious cases of misconduct made up against him. By order dated August 27, 1960, the Manager, Telegraph workshop dismissed the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal under clause 34 of the Certified Standing Orders for Telegraph Workshops at Calcutta and other places, which admittedly applied to the petitioner. The Deputy General Manager, posts and Telegraph Workshop, the appellate authority, on a consideration of the materials on record dismissed the appeal on January 7, 1961. The petitioner thereafter made various representations against his dismissal to the top departmental authorities, the Prime Minister and the ministers of the Central Government as also to the President of India. All the representations were ultimately rejected and attempts to raise an industrial dispute thereafter were made by the petitioner and his Union. But the Central Government declined to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication. In this state of affairs the petitioner moved this Court on July 3, 1968 by an application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution for quashing orders dismissing him contending that the disciplinary proceeding and orders passed therein were illegal, malafide, in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, as no opportunity was given to him to meet the allegations at the enquiry. Further the President's action in not interfering with the order while granting reliefs to the other persons who were alleged to be similarly situated, was discriminatory, hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. On this application the instant Rule was issued.

(3.) THE respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the petition and its annexures, the petition being a voluminous document of 479 pages, disputing the allegations and contentions made in the petition. It was contended that there was no illegality in the procedure of the enquiry in the disciplinary proceeding which was held in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice and no provision under Article 311 (2) was violated. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the. allegations made in the petition.