RAM CHANDER RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 3210, SECTOR 27-D, CHANDIGARH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, AMBALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order of the Labour Court upholding the termination effected by the Board of Directors against the petitioner. The reference to the Labour Court came on an order of termination effected on 18.11.1982. The order of termination was preceded by an enquiry report after a charge sheet had been levied against the employee. Charge sheet issued was an imputation of a misappropriation/embezzlement of Rs. 28,629.36. Along with the charge sheet, the appointing authority had served documents purporting to be vouchers and liability register of the year 1981. In the course of enquiry, the petitioner was alleged to have admitted to some of the shortages and the Enquiry Officer has ultimately found, after giving credit to some recoveries which were made out of his salary and for certain other remittances, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and odd as the outstanding due and payable by him. The report, therefore, came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioners stood proved. This enquiry report does not appear to have been communicated to the petitioner at any time but ultimately the termination order passed on 01.08.2012 records the fact that the Board of Directors had decided to accept the report given by the Enquiry Officer and they took a lenient view in a meeting held on 27.04.1982 for recovery of the amount determined before the Enquiry Officer's report in six installments with 16% interest. The termination order further reads that the petitioner did not make the payment as undertaken by him and therefore, the petitioner was informed on 26.07.1982 that the amount should be paid with interest. The ultimate order of termination is made with a reference to the petitioner being absent on certain days and in meeting held on 08.11.1982, the Board of Directors directed to terminate the services. It is this order which went in challenge before the Labour Court and the Labour Court reasoned that the petitioner had not explained as to how he was not guilty of charges.

(2.) I find right through the proceedings that there have been serious flaws not merely in matter of procedure but in substantial justice as well. When the charge sheet was levied holding him guilty of embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 28,000/- and odd, it did not give any substantial detail of the shortages with reference to any particular document. At least it does not appear to have brought been through any specific instances of misappropriation, for no witness was examined in the course of proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has in his report dealt with nine instances of entrustment and sales and has found against each one of the instances that the petitioner himself had conceded to the shortages and his liability. The petitioner would argue that there had been no such concession made nor was there any admission before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer does not make reference to any written admission as made by him. No document had been produced even before the Labour Court by the management to substantiate that there had been any such admission by him of his liability. If the report of the Enquiry Officer was, therefore, sketchy and laconic in all the necessary particulars, the punishing authority's ultimate order of termination is truly uncalled for to the manner in which it has set about to act on the Enquiry Officer's report.

(3.) When the matter was brought before the Board of Directors if they had decided to accept the Enquiry Officer's report, the principles of natural justice would have required them to serve a notice against the petitioner as to why report shall not be taken as establishing his guilt. On their part they should have also expressed their mind what their proposed action was. I find that no such steps have been taken to serve the petitioner with Enquiry Officer's report but it has proceeded to consider the plea of the workman that he was willing to make the payment. I take the recital in the termination order itself as proof of what could have taken place that the workman had undertaken to discharge the liability as determined in the Enquiry Officer's report. The termination order reads again that the Board was taking a lenient view on 27.04.1982 and acceded to the petitioner's request for recovery of shortages in six equal installments. If the Board had taken a lenient view, there was no going back on such lenient view and take a whimsical view later that he should be terminated from service. If there was a lenient view then that was the terminus quo with reference to the normal consequence of acceptance of Enquiry Officer's report. If the management, therefore, had decided to recover the money in six installments and the petitioner did not make the payment in such six installments and caused a default, any appropriate decision for recovery of the said amount alone could have been possible. There is no question of the management suddenly deciding to terminate the services because the amount was not paid. This would have been possible only in a situation where after accepting the Enquiry Officer's report, they had proceeded to inflict a punishment of removal from service. Removal from service could have been made conditional that it would be withdrawn if the amount is not paid within a particular time. I sought the counsel's assistance appearing on behalf of the respondent whether there had been any such conditional order passed since no such conditional order is available for me to see. The counsel would only seek for time to produce the document which I believe is another way of saying that it is not available. In a case that has stood on for three decades, the plea on the part of management that they are still searching for conditional order is unacceptable. If there was no such conditional order and if amount had not been paid, a decision to terminate him from service has come through some more instances which are said to have been taken note of by the authority for causing order of termination. Paragraph (d) in the termination order provides really a shocking elucidation of how the authority taking some other instances which were made in the charge, which is reproduced as under:-