^|t-—1H-T— f-.4il"l.,,»...1^ 1 (C ^ 7--- ff, 1 «7 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 WRIT PETITION N0.^<< 6:5/2004 PETITIONER RKaPONDENTS Manjeet Singh Jabbal S/o Harbhajan Singh Jabbal, Terminated Conductor, M.P.8tate Road Transport Corporation Raipur Depot No.2 Near Moulipara Mandir, Ravigram, Raipur [C.G.] VERSUS :-1. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation through Managing Director, Head Quarter, Habibganj, Bhopal [M.P.] 2. Depot Manager [Inquiry] Third M.P. State Road TransportCorporation, Head Quarters, Habibganj, Bhopal [M.P.] 3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Infrastructure Development Corporation, Raipur [C.G.] WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. -y HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB ATBILASPUR <C.O) Writ Petition No.2669 of 2004 Maajeet Siagh Vs. M.P.State Road Transport Corporation and ofhcrs ORDER Postfor 27.01.2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OP JUDICATURB ATBIIA8PUR <C.©) Wrft Petttion No.2669 of 2004 Manjeet Smgh Vs. M,P.State Road Transport Corporation axxd ofhers Shri Sachia Siagh Rajput, counsel for fhe petitioaer ORDER ('2-^01.2005) SuailKiiiaar 8ittlia»J, The present petitioxi is filal imider Article 226/227 offhe Constitution of India chaUengmg fh.e legality, validity aad propriely of fhe order dated 17.3.2004 ^mwxure P-13^ passed in Civil Appeal No.408/MPIR/A-H/2002 by fhe Industrial Coiirt, Raipur (C.G), By fhe itapugxied ofder, fhe teamed industrial Coiart has dismissed fhe appeal fited by fhe petitioner e^ainst the order dated 17.12.2002 ^nnejwre P-13) passed ia Case No.31/MPIR/92 by fhe Labour Coiart, Ra^ur. (2) The fects of the case are fliat Ihe petiticmer filed aa appUcatkm imder section 31(3) read wifh sectfoB 61 ofMadhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960 before ibe Labour Court, Raipur, aUegmg fhat he was woildiig as conductor te liie ^".^ 1 -1 - establishment of (he respondents smce fhe year 1980 aiid was dismissed fi^m service by the order of respondent no.2 bearmg No.203, dated 31.8.1991 (AmiexiMe P-8). The furth.er allegations are fhat a departmental eiiquiry was conducted agam.st him anid respondent no,2, dismiissed hixii after rccordirig a finding of misconduct. He furttier alleges that the aforesaid departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance wifh law as fhe fandamieiital principles of Batural justices were not compUed wifh and in. fact, he was not afforded aay opportunily ofbeing heard ia fhe said eaquiry, He prayed for settmg aside of fhe aforesaid oirier axid also for reioistatem.ent alongwifh fhe back-wages, (3) The documents in rclation to departmental enquiry ha1ve also been filed by fhe petitioner. It teaaspiEes fixmi the aforesaid documents fhat on 12,3.1991, fhe petitioner was on a duty as Conductor m M.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No.7588 which was ptymg from Raipur to Fiiigesfawar. The Bus was stopped toy fhe checkmg party aad after checkmg it was found that out of 15 passengera sitting m fhe Bus, 10 were travellixtg wifhout ticket, On iavestigation it was ftirfher found fhat fhe petitioner had realized fhe aiiiount of fares fi-oiii fhe said passexigers, but fbe tickets were not issued to fhemi, The cogttizaace ia fhe msatter was taken and a charge sheet was issued to fhe petitioner by the enquiry officer vide No.633 on02.4.1991, The copy ofttie charge sheet has been j51ed as Annexure P-1, TMe chax^e sheet -3- discloses the particulars of charges and it also discloses fhat fhe act of fhe petitiouer was serious misconduc^: uaider clause 12(l)(b)(d)(f) of the staadiag oxder appMcabte m. fhis c^e, A reply to the aforesaid charge sheet was submitted by tlie petitioner, fhe copy of which has beeaa filed as Aaancsaire P-2, The docuiaents filed alongwith fhe writ petition show that fhe evidence etc,, were ateo recorded by fhie enquixy officer axid after completion of fhe enquixy, tihie charges were found to be proved agaiast the petitioner, Tter^rfiter, on 31.5.1991, axi order of dismissal was passed against fhe petitioner lioldiiig liiin guAHy of gross misconduct uiider elaase 12(3)p3)(6^ of fhe said staading onler. It is after fhis^the petitioner chaUenged fhe legalily aad vatidily of the said oxder before the laboiir court on the grounds referred to above by filmg aM applteatioa under sectioa 31(3) read with sectkm 61 of tie M,P.I.R. Act After issuance of fhe notice by fhe latour Gourt, fhe respondents also fUed their writteii statemesat The labour Court fi^amed 3 issues ia fhis case, which are as foltows: "1. ^ir sn^^ ^ f^o^ ^t ^ f^rpN ^N yic^*-?zim f^RT ^aiT^'R' 7T ^? ^i^lPlq? t? 2. 'cFqr snteq? cii^cd^ ^t ^ r ^raw ^r ^t ^? ^? f^ir Trar ^s ^cr i?cr ^ET t ? 3. ^l^ctl ^ SEp? ?" -^ Issue no.l was treated as a prelmimaiy is^ie and after giving due opportunities of hearing to bofh fhe parties, fhe saoae was decided by an order dated 21.8,2000 which is filed as Annexure P-11. By tfae said order the enquiry was held to be illegal. Thereafter, the enquiiy was coiiducted by ftie Labour Court. After considering fhe entire evidenee and documents on record, fhe laboiir Ctourt decided fhe ofher two issues agamst fhe petitioner aiid it was held fhat fhe petitioner was guilty of niiscoaiduct and finally the appUcation fited by the petiUoner was dismissed, (4) It is iinportaot to mentlon fhis fact fhat while passing the order, tiie labour Court also obserured about the antec^dente of fhe petitioner, It has been inentioned ia fhe order fhat earUer also, vide case No. 17/ 1986 MPIR, the petitioner was peiral^d wifh the penality of Rs.300/- as he was carrymg 3 passengers without tickets, Ofher iacidents of similar iiature were also mentioned m fhe oider of fhe labour court aad thereafter only fhe labour Court passed fhe aforesaid order. Against fhe said order passed by fhe labour Court, fhe petitioner filed aa appe d before fhe iiidustrial Court u/s 65 of fhe aforcsaid Act and fhe iadustorial Court afber examiaing the facts aad docuineEits on record disniissed ffae appeal and confirmed fhe order passed by fhe labour Court, -5- (5) The contentions of fhe learaed counsel for fhe petitioaer are fhat the order passed by fhe courts below are unjustified and the courts below erred ia law m holdiag the petitianer guilly of serious misconduct, A de'novo enquity by fh.e Labour Court was not permissibk after fhe domestic eMquiry wais found to be illegal and fhe puidshiaent awarded to ihe petitioner is also dispropordonate. (6) I have heard leamed counsel at lengfh and liave also perused fhe rccords filed alongwith fhe wnt petition. (7) It is to be kept iti mmd fhat whUe dealmg witfa a matter uiider Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India, tihiough 13ie High Court is duty bound to keep mferior courts and tribunals wifhia the bounds of ftieir authorily aad to see that they do the duty expected or required of tiiem in a legal maaaier, but fhe High Court is not vested with. aoy iiidimited prerogative to correct aU kiads of hardship or wroaig de^isions made withm fhe limits ofjurisdiction offhe subordiaate courts or tribuiiate. Exercise of the power aad mterference with fhe orders of the Courts or tdbunals is restricted to cases of serious dercliction of duly aad flagraiit violation of fundaoaental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave mjustice remahis uncorrected. It is also well settled fhat in fact, the High Court while actiag under this article eaa&ot exercise its power as an appeUate Court or substilxite ite own - 6 judgDient m place of fhat of fhe sub<MdiEiate Court to eorrcct an error, which is not apparcnt on llie face of the lecoid, The High Coiirt can set aside or ignore fhe fiiidmgs of facts crf an ioferior coiirt or tdbunal, if fhere is no evidence at afi to justfcfy or the findiiig is so peryerse, fh.at oo reasoaable persoai caa possibly come to such a conclusion whi<di ttie court or trifounal has come to. (8ee (2001) 8 SCC Pii.97 tEa^ratht IbMfcr -V- Detss JBstate W Ltd,.). It has also been l ld ia tibe xoatter of Su^miMi 3S. Slddiv esnd ethers-V^ Rasncsh S. Bemkcxre fdcc^ ft»£JR&^ reported in f2001) 8 8CC 477 as a settled principle of law ttiat ia a petition under Article 227 of fhe Ooiistiturtioa, tlie High Court has to ^e whefher the lower cx>urt or fhe tribunal has jiirisdictioa to deal wifh fhe matter aad tf so, whether fhe impugned order is vitiated by procedwral irregularily; iii other words, tiie Court is coaceraed not wifhi fhe decision but witfa fhe decision niakiiig process. (8) Keepiiig these prmciples in miad ifwe exaxnme tiie case of the petitioner, then it appears that first of all, the petitioaier was served with a char^e aheet by ffce department uader fhe specified provisions ofrelevaat staadiiig order aad thereafter, a reply was taken j&om him aad after diie enquiry and gividg aii opporttmity of hearing, tiie order <rfdismissalwas passed, Tybm is fhe inatter m fhe jSrst mstaace^ However, when fhe matter caaie up beforc ffae labour €k)urt, tiie said court after framit^ -7- issues, took fhe issue no. 1 as the preMmmaxy issue axid after hearing the parties held the enquiry to be iUegal aad fhe Court itself enquired into the matter and fhiereafter only fhe charges were held to be proved. These facts go to show tfaat ffae labour coiut mdependently dealt wifh fhe matter aaid upon the pleadio.gs and evidence of the parties came to conclusioa that fhe petitioner was guilly of serious misconduct The fio.dmg is a findmg of fact and leamed couiisel for (he petitioner failed to point out aay perversity ia fhe aforesaM finding recoided by fhe labour court. (9) About the jurisdiction of fhe labour court, to conduct fhe enquixy itself, fhere can hardly be aay doubt after fhe decision of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Cozirt reported in 1969, MPLJ Pg. 132 fJfuwt Sim^t Chaiudhara-Vs' M.P.Bleetrlcity Board^ Jabidpwr cmd oth^rs| which lays down fhat if fhe domestic enquiry rcsulting iato tenxmiatioa of service was found to be defective, then, ffae tebour Court itaelf can hold an enquiry and uphold the order of termmation of seryice, (10) Now comiag to fhe question of disproportioiiate puiiishment, a decision of fhe apex Court ia fhe matter of Jteirional Mcnaflrer, OKSSRTC, JBtccMnh and ethe^ AtweUants -Va- Hotltcd and cuiother. resoondents reported in ASR 2003 S.C. 1462 is rcferable. The apex Court lias held -<8- that where a bus conductor was found to be canyfaag ticket- less passengers and was held to be guflty of gioss miscoaduct/derelfction ofduly oa his part, tihe s^tme cantiot be dealt with lenienUy, The bus coxiductor te a perscxi who deads wifh public money and acts m fiduciaiy capacily. The highest degrce of mtegrity and trustworthmess is a must and unexceptionable. If fhe chai^es are proved after elaborate and fair enquiry, fhe order of dismi^sal is not a disproportioaiate order. (11) In the Ught of fhe aforesaid decisimis given by ffae a^x Court and also to the light of fhe findings r^oided by fhe labour Court as weU as ftie iadusteial Court and fhe nature of charges held to be proved against fhe petitioner aad especMly looking to ffae aatecedents of hfe s^rvice, I do not find any reason to interfere wifh fhe orders oftfae said Ctourts, I fiad no xaerit ia the petition. The petition is dismissed at the m.0tion itself, No onder as to ftie coste, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ .01.2005 Rao