Judgment
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:
26. 02.2014 + W.P.(C) 5367/1998 SHRI MOHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE TRIBUNAL & ANR. ..... Respondents ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE: For the Petitioner: Mr G.D. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush Sharma, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr Rajat Arora, Advs. for R-2. CORAM :HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER RAJIV SHAKDHER, J1 This is a writ petition directed against the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 15.07.1996. By virtue of the said award, the Tribunal answered the reference in favour of respondent no.2 bank, i.e., the Management. The reference made by the Central Government to the Tribunal was whether the action of respondent no.2 bank, in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified or not, and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to.
2. This reference arose in the background of the following brief facts. 2.1 The petitioner was initially with the Indian Army. The petitioner joined respondent no.2 bank, on 30.12.1978, as a typist. The petitioner’s cadre was changed to that of a clerk, whereupon he was posted with the Chandni Chowk branch, located at Delhi of respondent no.2 bank. 2.2 It appears, that on 24.07.1985, transfer orders were issued to the petitioner for his transfer to Dhansa branch. 2.3 Evidently, the petitioner was not happy with the transfer. The service of the transfer order led to consternation. As a matter of fact, a tense situation developed, which spilled over to the next day, which was 25.07.1985. The fracas resulted in the manager of the Chandni Chowk branch, one, Mr R.N. Mehrotra being hit on the head near the right eye. There were also allegations of the manager’s hair being pulled etc. 2.4 It is in this background that a chargesheet-cum-suspension letter dated 27.07.1985, was served on the petitioner, on 31.07.1985. The petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply to the aforesaid chargesheet-cumsuspension letter, which he did, on 01.08.1985. By an order dated 03.08.1985, a departmental inquiry was ordered and an inquiry officer was appointed. 2.5 The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 25.08.1986. Based on the report a show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. To the said show cause notice a reply was furnished by the petitioner. Since the disciplinary authority was not persuaded by the reply filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 12.12.1986, penalty of dismissal from service, was imposed on the petitioner. 2.6 The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal with the appellate authority. However, the said appeal met the same fate and, the appellate authority, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.02.1987.
3. As indicated above, it is in this background that a reference was made by the appropriate government to the Tribunal. This reference was made on 15.05.1989. The Tribunal vide the impugned award answered the reference in favour of respondent no.2 bank, i.e., the Management.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, arguments were advanced by Mr G.D. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Piyush Sharma, while on behalf of respondent no.2 bank, submissions have been made by Mr Jagat Arora, assisted by Mr Rajat Arora.
5. Mr Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has made extensive submissions. The broad and basic submissions are as follows: (i) That defence had cited four witnesses and none of the four witnesses claimed that any commotion occurred within the bank premises either on 24th and 25th July, 1985. He submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner vis-à-vis his having manhandled the branch manager is not borne out from the testimony of the witnesses cited by the petitioner. (ii) The witnesses, i.e., Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), i.e., the branch manager and, the other officer of respondent no.2, i.e., Mr S.K. Chauhan (MW-6), who deposed to the effect that the petitioner had manhandled the branch manager Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), were inimical to the petitioner and, hence, their testimonies cannot be relied upon. (iii) The report of the constable Sh. Suresh Chand, who arrived at the site, shows that no injury was caused to Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), i.e., the branch manager, as alleged or at all. As a matter of fact, a police witness had been called with the record, for this purpose, whose testimony was not recorded and, therefore, the interests of the petitioner were compromised.
6. As against this Mr Arora, learned counsel for respondent no.2 bank, took me through the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer and the testimonies of various witnesses, in particular, the testimony of Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5) and Sh. S.K. Chauhan (MW-6). Based on the testimonies, Mr Arora submitted that there can be no doubt that the branch manager Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5) was manhandled and, therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner were established. Mr Arora, in fact, submitted that the petitioner had also hurled filthy abuses, which were directed against the officers; a charge which was also proved against the petitioner. 6.1 In order to buttress his submissions, Mr Arora took me through the record which included, as indicated above, the testimony of the witnesses, MW-5 and MW-6, the medical certificates (Ex. E/M-7) and (Ex. E/M/-6) issued by the two doctors contemporaneously to Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), the branch manager, the documents (Ex. E/M/9) which established reimbursement of expenses incurred by the branch manager towards his medical treatment. 6.2 Mr Arora also took me through the proceedings held before the inquiry officer, in particular, the proceedings held on 13.05.1986, 03.06.1986 and 11.07.1986, to support his submissions that despite several opportunities being given to the police witness, summoned by the petitioner, i.e., Mr M.P. Singh, he did not make it his business to appear before the inquiry officer on the dates given except on 03.06.1986 when the matter could not be taken up by the inquiry officer. 6.3 Mr Arora thus submitted that the record speaks for itself, which is that, the petitioner, had not only abused the officers concerned but also adopted physical means to vent his anger qua the officers, in particular, the branch manager Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5). 6.4 In support of his submissions, Mr Gupta relied upon the following two judgments of the Supreme Court: Civil Appeals Nos. 3564-3565/1979 dated 13.09.1988 titled Calcutta Port Shramik Union vs Calcutta River Transport Association & Ors. and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs N.B. Narawade 2005 SCC (L&S) 361.
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that there is no reason for me to accept the submission of Mr Gupta, that the testimony of Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5) or, Mr S.K. Chauhan (MW-6), should be discarded. The testimony of Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), has a ring of truth in it. Even if I were to assume that Mr S.K. Chauhan (MW-6) bore a grouse against the petitioner, certainly the record does not suggest that there was any animosity obtaining between the branch manager and the petitioner. The testimony of the branch manager Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW5), clearly establishes the following: (i) That on 24.07.1985 the petitioner was handed over the transfer order. (ii) In the first instance, the petitioner had refused to accept the transfer order; which he finally accepted, though reluctantly – at which stage he uttered the following words:
“…Maine bhi Delhi me rehna hai Aur Tujhe Bhi Delhi me rehna hai. Tujhe mere mamle me khamkha panga le liya hai…” (iii) The service of the transfer orders created consternation and, the petitioner, hurled abuses, which the manager heard, while he was in his chamber. (iv) That, the two relatives of Mr S.K. Chauhan, Mr Sohan Lal and Mr Ashok Kumar, who were otherwise customers of respondent no.2 bank, visited the bank for deposit of their insurance receipt, on 25.07.1985, when a fracas erupted outside the chamber of the branch manager. In order to calm down the tempers, the relatives of Mr S.K. Chauhan, i.e., Mr Sohan Lal and Mr Ashok Kumar, alongwith officers, including the petitioner, were called by the manager, to his chamber. In the chamber the situation became worse. The petitioner, in the chamber, uttered the following words:
“Maro sale ko, maro manager ko, yehi sab karwa raha hai”. (v) It is in the chamber of the manager that the petitioner took up the telephone apparatus lying on the table of the branch manager, with an intention to assault the branch manager with the said apparatus. It was, due to the intervention of Mr Ashok Kumar, that the petitioner, was unable to use the telephone apparatus to hit the branch manager. The petitioner, however caught hold of the hair of the branch manager and hit him with his fist on his right temple. This resulted in not only causing injury to the branch manager, but also resulted in his spectacles being broken. (vi) The branch manager requisitioned the flying squad and also intimated the regional office; whereupon, the police arrived at the scene. (vii) The branch manager had prepared a complaint for lodgement of a FIR, which was submitted to his regional office for approval. The branch manager also visited two doctors the same day for getting treatment qua the injury suffered by him.
8. Having regard to the testimony of Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5), I have no doubt in my mind that the incident did take place and that the petitioner was responsible for inflicting a blow to the head of Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW5). The charge with regard to hurling of abuses is also established. Based on the testimony of various witnesses, including Mr R.N. Mehrotra (MW-5) and Mr S.K. Chauhan, the inquiry officer has returned the following findings:
“FINDINGS: In the light of the evidence on record as discussed above, it is proved that the delinquent turned violent and shouted at the officer in the Branch, Shri S.K. Chauhan, in the after noon on 24.7.1985: xxxx xxxx (words are scored out, as the language used is gross and filthy) It is also proved that the delinquent also shouted at the manager:
“Maine bhi Delhi me rehna hai aur tujhe bhi Delhi me rehna hai. Tujhe mere mamle me khamkha panga le liya hai” It is also proved that on 25.7.1985 around 11.30 A.M., the delinquent entered the Manager’s Chamber and shouted at him:
“Maro sale ko, maro manager ko, yehi sab karwa raha hai” It is also proved that the delinquent picked up the telephone instrument to hit the manager, which attempt when was foiled, he caught hold of the manager by his hair and hit him on his right tample with his fist blow causing injury and the spectacles were also broken. It is also proved that the delinquent created commotions in the Branch on 25.7.1985. Thus the charge as detailed above and contained in the charge-sheet vide No.RO/Admn./33/469 of 27.7.85 served on the delinquent stand established beyond any reasonable doubt. However it is not proved that the delinquent instigated some of the members of staff in the Branch on 25.7.85 and led them gate crashed the Manager’s Chamber around 11.30 A.M. Findings submitted…”
9. Having regard to the findings extracted above, I am of the view that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate authority, cannot be disturbed. For the very same reason, the award passed by the Tribunal also, cannot be disturbed. In my view, this is not a case where findings have been returned without legal evidence on record or, that, the findings reached are perverse.
10. In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY26 2014 kk