r^^ w COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP'UR WR1T PETITION (L) No. 2430 of2(M)8 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1 Abdul Majeed Khan S/o Nabidad Khaii, aged aboat 46 years, R/o Raja Talab, tie.ar Gopal Store, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Chhattisgasii Infrastmctare Developmeiit Corpomtion, (Tmi^sport Departoient) C.I.D.C., Raipur (C.G.) .2. State ofChIiattisgarh.'TlirougIi the Secretary to the Dept^. of Tramport, DKS Bhawaii, Raipur. 3. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporatioii, . Throixgh the Maiiagiiig Director, Habib Ganj, Bhopal (M.P) 4. State Industrial Court, Raipur(C.G.) Presiding Ofilcer Laboyr Court, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WBH^PETITIQNUM)ERARTICLE,226/227_OFTHEC SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiiijiotri, J. Present: Sfari Vinod Deshmukh. Advocate fbr the petitioBer. Shi-i Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Goveiiiment Advocate for tiie State/ respondent No. 2. QRALQRDER (Passed on 28mday of April, 2008) 5. 1, By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 01.09.2005 (Asmexiire P/10) passed by the State IndBstrial C-ourt, Raipur, iti'AppeaI No. 534/MPIR../96, with consequential reliefand full back wages. 2. The facts- in nutshell. are that the petitioner was imtiaily appomted as Conductor with tfae Madliya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporaticii (for short 'MPSRTC') inthe year 1985. While working as Conductor, at Jagdalpur, he was served with a charge-sheet date4 30.04,1990 (Aimexure.P/1) to fhe effbct that cm 21.3.1990, oa checkitig ofveNde- No. 6829, whereinthe petitioner was Condiictor, 30 passeiigers were not issued tickets after collectmg money from them; with the mtention to embezzle the' fand. On the spot, the petitioner declmed to coiint the money, refased to sign the PanchnaBia and receipt of duplicate copy of the seizure niemo, vvhich amoimts to miscoiiduct under the provisioiis of ^T" clause 12(1) (B.D.F.) ofthe Standmg Order. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.01.1991 (Amiexure P/2), making allegatioiis that smc@ fhe deniand raised by the Flying Squad was not met, the papers Vvere seized. The petitioner asked fbr certam more dociiments. Eiiquiry was conducted by the Disciplmary Authority wherein the: charges alleged against fhe petitioner was foiind proved and fhe petition^r was dismissed from sendce 01112.07.1991 (Aimexiire P/3). Being aggrieved, the. pefitioner moved the Labour Coiirt under provisions. of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Retatioiis Act, 1960. . The Labour Court, by order dated 25.09.1996 (Aimexure P/7) came to the conclusion that the Department Enquir>r was invalid. Ttie employer has failed to establish the misconduct. Thus, the Labour Coiirt allowed the application and directed the respondents to reinstate fhe petitioner m service with back wages. Against the said orden the respondent No. 3 preferred aa appeal before the hidustrial Court. Iii the meantime, under the proYisioiis of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, the M.P.S.R.T.C. was dissolved and the persons working within the area of Ciihattisgarh, were allocated to the Clihattisgarh Iiifrastmcture Development Corporation. The Industrial Court, after having exammed the case; allowed tlie appeal aiid accordingly set aslde the order passed by the Labour Court, holdmg as under: "9. si^TcT ^ ^T ^? ^^•n 1^> 4>di^t W1^ ^ 3Tl^l<t>lR^I' ^ ^ T^cTcT c^ l^ TfFt, M^I^T ^ra ''ft R^^-ti'fl^i ?RNT ~^ ?rar Nif^ f^OTp ^cT c^ ^rr.^. '^r?m ^er ^?.^. TRqR ^ M^PT^SFT ^ ^ram ^rsr ^ STR ^r ?w c^ ^^ ^t 1^7^! W^> 3?^rf^<T ^T6^ tf^f^Ff craz? 3?? t f^) zri^ i{-mc[ q-ST ^ ^5^ft ^ 3?^TR ^^^? ^l ^T T T? ^f eFfcj?[ ^t ^ ^ft 1^ ^T cft ^? ^ T^cIH < 3?^[&TT ^I ^Tf f^ •g?^' ^ti WW, t ^ <<if41!^j45 ^H -^ ^cT^ ^RT ^ q^T ^f •^ STpff ^ fNl^ ^t ^ ?t^t TIT qp ^T ^q f^TFr cpt f^q^ c^ ^ ^ft j xpg MR^i<?i45 €t^? ^?m t f^ ^^ ^f ^tf fNT^ f^tw? ^r ^ f^^ ^t ^ ! sT^gTcr ugf ^ ^rs-H ^ iTcn^ ^^ ^rocT ^ '^H tl ^T4T t ^T ^m ^^s^^^ii g^ ^cn t', ^RT ^f^r ^T qTT^cTT^- ^ ^m^fFT ?T f^ZTT ^TRT ^T^ iRT f^Sf^ ^cT ^t ^?T I^T -^ ?T cp^ -^TT f^ft tft <^1|^ TK ?WTSK ^ ^T'Tl, ^? ^pft ?r®9q? ^iT?r t ^ cp'scrc.K ^t ^TeTtft T? aff I^TI 9? i^f ^ f^rr fef^ ^rf^fr cpt ?n^T ^r^ ^ST w i ^qff^ ^ c^^? ^TO' 6. ^ ^T^cT ^T4 7i€t f^?T ^TOT STT <it ^t f^tSPT ^5T ^ ^ .T W^ ^ ^ STTTRrT ^ ^Fft 'mf^ «ft! io. f^jtcrpff TTsr ^ ?Ht '^prt ^T ^e-Fr t f^ ^-TRT H^t Tft-3, f^SPT yRt^^l TR^f Tft-32 ^CTI ^W XR ^t f^K 'f^ 7T^ f^T TK wRraf ?cf -qj^cp ^ ?^Trgf? f^ TT^ ^TI ^s^e? ^ ^^ T? ?^<TTSK ^^ ^T ^5K cp^ f^zn- s ^r ci^i^uil ^ ^r ^TORT <i«2T? ^T 'S^TQ ^tt Pi^<tc1l ^TST ^ ^^pft ^T ^t f^T^ sRW ti I^ ^-^J^ ^ ^T 6?^TcT ^ ^ Ij^f^ ^ t f|? ft^SPT XcT wm-'^i^T, fef^s ^ ^qTf^ ^m^r <^<tii^ ^'?r^r ^^ ^§t^ ^ ^ 1 zrf^ ^w |^T ?rar cfr W^fS^ ^ ^^T f^T ^l" 'SiTO cf?t f^?r 3 IT? 1T? fNPT ^l W^l f^IT €PH| ^? Wt ^82? :q? ^'?it^ f^ ^^e^ ufg ^r Tftft^ ^Rr ^ ^ra^r ^r "q?^" ^ W(T :wr ^N ^3^ ^N 41^^45-< 3PRT ^IFT X^TraT t| 3?1^R%[ -^Wid^ ^ ^P-ft^t^ ^ d§zi ^ 1^?R ^ ^r ^ Sj'wqpq 3INT'? ^ ^r s?^Tcr ^TST c^ ^gi-fl ^r ^t '^THT t ^ N^? yicj^t'll ^ fq4'<'l<1 l sicr: ^? 3?^r ^N^ fNi ^r ^fpzi 11 ^r ^NKT ^ z?? f^rr I^THT ^-iscj^cb ^r ^pn f^ q^gs^ 31^1 ^^fe 1?3TrT ^ yRl4^8T°T ^ WlcTrIT ^RT N" '351^ f^| •^ f f^ ^ ^ 'tft ^^cjij SiF^W ^<T '?§T t ?rm ^ ^^ '*ft cp^ SK ^r 5R>T? •^ -^ra^T ^ f^ ^d f^qT TTOT m 13??rPr ^ira % ^T^ ^K ^IT t^ ?r? ^TS^ ^t ^^T ^ 51 ^tiRi^t' ^ ^ 30 "qi^ ^•TT-fca^ ^r ^n -^T %n f^nt cr? l^^mi ^^r ^? ^ en ?}? ^P-ft^ S^ ^T ^•<l-s|'<ul t f^ra^ ^? Pi4i'tcii ^j^r •^CTT wnPci <?T €t"^ "^ WPcTT 8Tf!" Thus, this petition. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner has reiterated the same argiiment which was considered by the Industrial Court that tlie officers ofthe Flying Squad demanded some money which could siot be paid. thus, a false case has been registered against the petitioner. Shri Deshmukh farther contends that the Departmental Eiiquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Authority himself thiis., tlie Departmeiital Enquiry is vitiated. The contention ofthe petitioner is to be noticed for rejection only as it is well settled principle of law that the Eiiquiry Authority acfs on behalfofthe Disciplinary Airfhority wfaile cotiductiiig Departmental Enquiry. The Disciplmary Authority is the final aathority who can hold the Departmental Enqiiir^7 himself or throu^i aii Enqwry Officer appointed by him. The Industri^l Court has gone at length, while considermg the Departmental Enquir)''. The Industrial Court held fhat the allegations of demand of m.oney was not proved and it has not beeii proved as the ^ .s^"' same question was not put to the officers during the Departmental Enx^uiry. The Industrial Court, after having considered several aspects, came to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner was foimd proved. The flndmgs recorded by the Labour Court was accorditigly set aside and the order dated 25.09.1996 passed by the Labovr Gourt was also set aside. 7. Aii employee holds a position oftryst where honesty and mto^-ity are inherent in the functioning, and as such the matter should not be dealt with lenisotly. When an employee commits misconduct for hss pei^onal gains against the interest of the employer^ he must be dealt with iroii hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniesitly. 8. It is well settled prmcipie of law that the scope ofjudicial review is limited to the deflcieiicy iti decisioii-making process not the decisioii. In the present case, there is no irrationality, illegality or procedural irregularity, which require interference m the fmding of the enquir}7 officer and the decision ofthe disciplmary authority for imposition of pumshment. 9. Looking from all angles, no interference is warranted with the impu^ied order passed by the Industrial Court. 10, Accordmgly- the petition is dismissed, smiimarily, Sd/- Sarish K.Agnihotri Judge Asnit