# U.P.S.R.T.C v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 535
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22890 of 1996
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-s-r-t-c-v-presiding-officer-industrial-tribunal-another-40166
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Service Law-Natural justice-petitioner
reverted on basis of an adverse entryrelevant
documents-not
suppliedreasonable opportunity not given-order
can not sustained.

Serive Law- Reversion-adverse entry
awarded after third enquiry conductecd
for same charges--petitioner exonerated
in two previous enquiries- such act of
respondents- held, not proper- intended
to cause harassment.

Held- Para 9

The petitioner was denied the relevant
documents asked by him for the purpose
of his defence, though it is not necessary
to supply every document asked for, but
the authorities are under obligation to
supply material and relevant document
and
no
person
can
be
dismissed
,removed or reduced in rank or violated
with adverse consequences in violation
of the principles of natural justice and
without
giving
him
reasonable
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
536
opportunity
to
defend
himself.
The
respondents were under constitutional
obligations to provide an opportunity to
the petitioner particularly where they
have been conducting enquiries on the
same charges against the delinquent
employee
again
and
again.
The
respondents have not act reasonably and
fairly. Conducting enquiry after 13 years
after the petitioner was exonerated in
the first enquiry, in the second enquiry
and again in the third enquiry is nothing
but outcome of malice and vindictive
attitude causing
harassment of the
employee.
Case law discussed:
ESC (Alld) 2002 (4) 388
AIR 1971 SC 1447

## Text

2 All] U.P.S.R.T.C. V. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & another
535
reinstatement with continuity of service
and full back wages.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
questioned the aforesaid finding which, in
my opinion, is unassailable as the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not point
out as to whether the finding is contrary to
material on record or is perverse thus in
any way suffers from manifest error of
law so as to warrant interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In this view of the matter, this
court in exercise of powers conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India will not interfere with the findings
recorded by the Labour Court being
findings of fact.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted that admittedly the
workman's services were terminated
w.e.f. 14th February, 1990 and he has not
worked during all these years and when
the workman was offered employment, he
has not accepted it and since this fact has
not been disputed by the workman,
therefore, he is not entitled for full back
wages.

7. In view of the above submissions
made
by
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner-employer and also in the
interest of justice, in my opinion, the
award is required to be modified to the
extent that the workman shall be entitled
for only half of the back wages instead of
full back wages from the date of
termination till the date of award. Rest of
the award is upheld.

8. In view of what has been stated
above, the writ petition is dismissed
except for above modification. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22890 of 1996

L.P. Saxena

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Srivastava
Sri S.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.K. Pandey
S.C.

Service Law-Natural justice-petitioner
reverted on basis of an adverse entryrelevant
documents-not
suppliedreasonable opportunity not given-order
can not sustained.

Serive Law- Reversion-adverse entry
awarded after third enquiry conductecd
for same charges--petitioner exonerated
in two previous enquiries- such act of
respondents- held, not proper- intended
to cause harassment.

Held- Para 9

The petitioner was denied the relevant
documents asked by him for the purpose
of his defence, though it is not necessary
to supply every document asked for, but
the authorities are under obligation to
supply material and relevant document
and
no
person
can
be
dismissed
,removed or reduced in rank or violated
with adverse consequences in violation
of the principles of natural justice and
without
giving
him
reasonable
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
536
opportunity
to
defend
himself.
The
respondents were under constitutional
obligations to provide an opportunity to
the petitioner particularly where they
have been conducting enquiries on the
same charges against the delinquent
employee
again
and
again.
The
respondents have not act reasonably and
fairly. Conducting enquiry after 13 years
after the petitioner was exonerated in
the first enquiry, in the second enquiry
and again in the third enquiry is nothing
but outcome of malice and vindictive
attitude causing
harassment of the
employee.
Case law discussed:
ESC (Alld) 2002 (4) 388
AIR 1971 SC 1447

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

Heard the counsel for the parties and
perused the record..

1. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 18.6.1996, whereby the
petitioner has been awarded an adverse
entry and was reverted to his original post
of Junior Clerk/Routine Clerk.

2. The facts of this case are that the
petitioner was appointed in the year 1964
on the post of Routine Clerk. He was
promoted on the post of Senior Assistant
in
the year 1985.An enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner in 1981
in respect of some missing Forms-31. In
the enquiry the petitioner was not found
guilty vide enquiry report dated 3/4-61982 and responsibility was fixed upon
one Sri V.K. Srivastava. After a lapse of
13 years a second enquiry was conducted
by the Assistant Commissioner Trade Tax
in the same matter/charges in which the
petitioner was again exonerated from the
charges. The relevant extract of the
enquiry report dated 2.5.1995 is quoted
below:

eq>s ,d tkap vf/kdkjh ds :Ik esa bl ckr ls cMh
dq.Bk dk vuqHko gqvk gS fd Jh ,y0 ih0 lDlsuk ftls
dkuiqj ifj{ks=h; usrzRo eas avkdj dbZ oiaks ls mRdzLV dk;Z
fu"iknu ds fy;s ekuns; ls lEekfur fd;k gSaA oiZ
1994@95 ds fy;s Hkh mUgsa ,slk lEeku izkIr gqvk tks
vdkj.k gh QkeZ xk;c fd;s tkus rFkk mUgsa csp fy;s tkus ds
vkjksi eas ekufld =klnh dh x;h gSA nwljs budh dk;Z
i}fr ,oa euksn'kk ij izfrdwy izHkko gksuk vLokHkkfod ugha
gSA vijk/kks dks fu%lUnsg nf.Mr fd;k tkuk pkfg;s fdUrq tks
vijk/kh ugha gS mls ijs'kku djuk mfpr ugha gS esjh laLrqfr
gS fd Jh ,y0ih0 lDlsuk dks bl vkjksi i= ls cjh fd;k
tk;sA

3. Though the petitioner was
exonerated
in
two
enquiries
dated
3/4.6.82 and 2.5.93, he was subjected to
third enquiry for the same charges in the
year 1995.He raised objections against
initiation of third enquiry for the same
and similar charges.

4. The petitioner in pursuance of the
order dated 15.4.1996 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.13063 of 1996
and the order dated 25.4.1996 passed by
this Court in Special Appeal No.362 of
1996, moved a detailed representation on
15.5.1996 and again on 13.6.1996 raising
all the objections before the punishing
authority for consideration before taking
any final decision in the matter.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for
the petitioner that ignoring the aforesaid
representations made before the punishing
authority, the impugned order was passed
on 18.6.1996. It is further submitted by
the counsel for the petitioner that before
framing the U.P. Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999,
there was no provision of second or
successive enquiry, while in the present
case not only second but even third
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] L.P. Saxena V. State of U.P. and another
537
enquiry was conducted for the same and
similar charges and thus the impugned
order being based on third enquiry report
(all the three reports being submitted
much prior to framing of aforesaid Rules
1999) is not sustainable and deserves to
be quashed.

6. In E.S.C.(All.)2002(4) 388 Sushil
Kumar
Vs.
Engineer
-in-Chief,
Irrigation
U.P.Sinchai
Bhawan,
Lucknow and others, it has been held by
this Court that without canceling/rejecting
the earlier enquiry report, fresh enquiry
into one and same incident is not
maintainable . In K.R. Deb V. Collector
Excise Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447, it
has been held by the Apex Court that;

"Rule 15. on the face of it, really
provides for one enquiry but it may be
possible if in a particular case there has
been no proper enquiry because some
serious defect has crept into the inquiry or
some important witnesses were not
available at the time of the enquiry or
were not examined for some other reason,
the Disciplinary Authority may ask the
Inquiry Officer to record further evidence.
But there is no provision in Rule 15 for
completely
setting
aside
previous
inquiries on the ground that the report of
the Inquiry Officer or Officers does not
appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The
Disciplinary Authority has enough powers
to reconsider the evidence itself and come
to its own conclusion under Rule 9.

7. It further held in para 14 that

"In our view the rules do not
contemplate an action such as was taken
by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It
seems to us that the collector, instead of
taking
responsibility
himself
was
determined to get some officer to report
against the appellant. The procedure
adopted was not only unwarranted by the
Rules but was harassing to the appellant."

8. From the above it is clear that a
disciplinary enquiry is vitiated on account
of certain technical and procedural flaws.
In such circumstances the employer is at
liberty to get the matter re-examined on
merits by initiating the second enquiry.
Other conclusion, which flows from the
above decisions is that if after considering
the material on record, the disciplinary
authority has found that an employee was
not guilty of the charges and has been
exculpated of the allegations made against
him in that event, the de novo enquiry
would be nothing but harassment of the
concerned employee and therefore the de
novo or second enquiry would not be
legally permissible.

9. The petitioner was denied the
relevant documents asked by him for the
purpose of his defence, though it is not
necessary to supply every document
asked for, but the authorities are under
obligation to supply material and relevant
document
and
no
person
can
be
dismissed, removed or reduced in rank or
violated with adverse consequences in
violation of the principles of natural
justice and without giving him reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. The
respondents were under constitutional
obligations to provide an opportunity to
the petitioner particularly where they have
been conducting enquiries on the same
charges against the delinquent employee
again and again. The respondents have
not
acted
reasonably
and
fairly.
Conducting enquiry after 13 years after
the petitioner was exonerated in the first
enquiry, in the second enquiry and again
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
538
in the third enquiry is nothing but
outcome of malice and vindictive attitude
causing harassment of the employee. This
also appears from the recommendation of
the
enquiry
report
dated
2.5.1995
extracted above.

10. For all the aforesaid reasons and
the provisions of law discussed above, the
writ petition succeeds and is allowed with
costs of Rs.2000/- to be recovered from
Sri Dharam Singh, the then Upper
Commissioner (Prashashan) Vyapar Kar,
U.P. Lucknow and paid to the petitioner
as arrears of land revenue within two
months. The District Magistrate will
submit compliance report to this Court
immediately thereafter.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.4.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32183 of 2001

Rishi Muni Giri

...Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation and others
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri P. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sameer Sharma

Constitution
of
India-Article
226-
removal from service-Removal-serious
lapses in discharge of duty- findings of
enquiry
officer
and
disciplinary
authority-no
perversity
or
mistake
found- no interference called for.

Held- Para 10
In view of the aforesaid analysis it is
clear that petitioner has been punished
on the charge of serious lapses on his
part
in
discharge
of
duty.
The
explanation given by him has not been
found
to
be
substantiated
by
any
material and there being a finding on a
question of fact the court do not find any
perversity or apparent mistake in the
findings and conclusions arrived at by
the enquiry officer or the disciplinary
authority and thus petitioner is not
entitled to get any relief from this Court

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. Challenge in this petition are the
orders dated 31.7.1998 (annexure no. 5 to
the writ petition) 11.10.2000 (annexure
no. 6 to the writ petition) and 30.5.2001
(annexure no. 7 to the writ petition),
passed by the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3
respectively.
By
the
order
dated
31.7.1998, referred above, the disciplinary
authority removed the petitioner from
service, which has been confirmed in
appeal and revision by the other two
orders, referred above.

2. For the purpose of decision brief
facts can be summarized thus. The
petitioner had been working as conductor
in
the U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation, herein after referred to as the
Corporation. Petitioner claims that he was
allotted duty on 22.9.1996 for running
with the bus from Lalganj to Delhi and
Delhi to Lalganj and thereafter from
Bahraich to Lalganj and to Allahabad and
thus
after
completing
three
days
continuous duty petitioner was to take rest
at his quarter as he was not feeling well
and was suffering with serious headache.
It is said that although the petitioner was
to be allowed double duty rest but on
account of non availability of any
conductor to proceed with the bus from
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in