Case: Kalindi &amp; Others Vs. Tata Locomotive &amp; Engineering Co., Ltd

up on the basis of this finding and served on him after stating that he was found guilty of the first three charges stated that he was found guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman, who was compelled to stop work on 21-5-1958. On his behalf it has been urged that though the enquiry officers report says that he was guilty of "threatening and intimidating Charan Singh" the General Manager misled himself into thinking that he had threatened and intimidated Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman. There being no finding by the Enquiry Officer that Gurbux Singh was guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman, the General Manager was not entitled to take such a misconduct into consideration.16. On an examination of the Enquiry Officers report it is however obvious that there is a clerical error in the concluding portion of the report in stating the finding as regards the fourth charge as "threatening and intimidating Charan Singh was really one of the striking workers and there was no question of intimidating him. It is abundantly clear from the report that the case that was sought to be made as regards the fourth charge was that Chakravarty had been intimidated and that this allegation was found proved. There could not have been and was not any allegation of Charan Singh being intimidated. It is quite clear that name of Charan Singh was accidentally mentioned in the concluding portion of the report instead of the correct name Chakravarty. There is no justification for thinking that the General Manager who had gone through the evidence and report of the Enquiry Officer could possibly have been misled by this clerical mistake. The relevant charge was threatening and intimidating other workers, whether Charan Singh or Chakravarty was intimidated would not be of any consequence. In fact however the allegation against this appellant clearly was that Chakravarty had been intimidated by him. The body of the report shows that that was what the Enquiry Officer found proved. It is reasonable to think that that conclusion and not the wrong statement that Charan Singh was threatened and intimidated - which was nobodys case - weighed with the General Manager in determining the punishment. In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention urged on his behalf that the finding that Charan Singh was threatened and intimidated as an act of misconduct instead of Chakravarty was wrongly relied upon.17. On behalf of the appellant S. K. Dhanda it has been urged that in making the dismissal order the General Manager wrongly thought that he had been found guilty of all the four acts of misconduct which were against him in the charge-sheet though in fact he was found guilty only of three and the fourth charge was not proved. The four acts of misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet were :"1. Participation in an illegal strike;2. Leaving his place of duty without permission;3. Inciting other employees in the Paint Shop, Propeller Shaft Section, Rear Axle Section and Press Section of the Auto Division to Stop Work;4. Behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner and threatening and intimidating another co-worker.18. The formal order of dismissal that was drawn up stated that he had been found guilty of the following acts of misconduct :"1. Participation in an illegal strike;2. Leaving his place of duty without permission;3. Inciting other employees in the Paint Shop, Propeller Shaft Section, Rear Axle Section and Press Section of the Auto Division to stop work;4. Threatening and intimidating another employee by name Mr. T. S. N. Rao, T. No. 6610/60205/1, and stopping him from doing his work. He is therefore dismissed from the service of the company ......".19. The Enquiry Officers repot states the conclusions reached by him thus :"From the statement of the witnesses, it has been conclusively proved that Mr. Dhanda1. participated in an illegal strike;2. left his place of duty without permission;3. incited other employees to stop work.It can be said that the charge of threatening and intimidating has not been proved beyond doubt."20. If one looks at the formal order of dismissal only it seems that though the charge of threatening and intimidating other employees was not proved against him the order of dismissal was partially based on it. If there was nothing else this might be a serious infirmity in the order. We find however that the General Manager recorded his order on the formal Report itself in these words :"I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the proceedings of the enquiry. Even though the charge of threatening and intimidating other workers has not been proved against Mr. Dhanda the other charges are also of a serious nature. In the circumstances, I order that he be dismissed from the service of the company with effect from the date of the charge-sheet."21. This was dated July 3, 1958, and the formal order also bears the same date. Reading the two together it is quite clear that the General manager in passing the order o dismissal proceeded on the basis that the charge of threatening and intimidating other employees had not been proved against Mr. Dhanda but a mistake crept into the formal order that was drawn up and among the acts of misconduct mentioned as those of which Dhanda had been found guilty and on which the dismissal order was based the fourth charge as regards threatening and intimidating other employees was also mentioned.It is proper to hold that this was an accidental clerical mistake and that in fact the General Manager did not proceed on the wrong basis that Dhanda had been found guilty on this fourth charge also.The mere fact that such a clerical error appears in the formal order does not affect the validity of the order in any way.22. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the separate contentions pressed on behalf of seven of the appellants that the Tribunals below did not consider certain infirmities in the order cannot also be sustained.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. It is quite clear that the statement in the dismissal order as regards "entering the Works when not on duty" was really intended to state the manner and occasion in which the misconduct of "inciting other employees to strike work" was committed. The unnecessary and indeed slightly erroneous mention that he had been found guilty of "entering the works when not on duty" does not justify the conclusion that this fact of "entering the works when not on duty" played any part in the mind of the punishing authority in determining his punishment. A statement in the dismissal order "that he has been found guilty of entering the Works when not on duty as an act of misconduct is obviously erroneous. The act of misconduct of which this appellant was found guilty was "inciting other employees to strike work" and that is the only misconduct which weighed with the punishing authority. The contention that the mention in the dismissal order of "entering the Works when not on duty" as an act of misconduct of which he had been found guilty, vitiates the order of dismissal cannot therefore be accepted.The formal dismissal order that was drawn up on the basis of this finding and served on him after stating that he was found guilty of the first three charges stated that he was found guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman, who was compelled to stop work on 21-5-1958. On his behalf it has been urged that though the enquiry officers report says that he was guilty of "threatening and intimidating Charan Singh" the General Manager misled himself into thinking that he had threatened and intimidated Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman. There being no finding by the Enquiry Officer that Gurbux Singh was guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman, the General Manager was not entitled to take such a misconduct into consideration.16. On an examination of the Enquiry Officers report it is however obvious that there is a clerical error in the concluding portion of the report in stating the finding as regards the fourth charge as "threatening and intimidating Charan Singh was really one of the striking workers and there was no question of intimidating him. It is abundantly clear from the report that the case that was sought to be made as regards the fourth charge was that Chakravarty had been intimidated and that this allegation was found proved. There could not have been and was not any allegation of Charan Singh being intimidated. It is quite clear that name of Charan Singh was accidentally mentioned in the concluding portion of the report instead of the correct name Chakravarty. There is no justification for thinking that the General Manager who had gone through the evidence and report of the Enquiry Officer could possibly have been misled by this clerical mistake. The relevant charge was threatening and intimidating other workers, whether Charan Singh or Chakravarty was intimidated would not be of any consequence. In fact however the allegation against this appellant clearly was that Chakravarty had been intimidated by him. The body of the report shows that that was what the Enquiry Officer found proved. It is reasonable to think that that conclusion and not the wrong statement that Charan Singh was threatened and intimidated - which was nobodys case - weighed with the General Manager in determining the punishment. In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention urged on his behalf that the finding that Charan Singh was threatened and intimidated as an act of misconduct instead of Chakravarty was wrongly relied upon.This was dated July 3, 1958, and the formal order also bears the same date. Reading the two together it is quite clear that the General manager in passing the order o dismissal proceeded on the basis that the charge of threatening and intimidating other employees had not been proved against Mr. Dhanda but a mistake crept into the formal order that was drawn up and among the acts of misconduct mentioned as those of which Dhanda had been found guilty and on which the dismissal order was based the fourth charge as regards threatening and intimidating other employees was also mentioned.It is proper to hold that this was an accidental clerical mistake and that in fact the General Manager did not proceed on the wrong basis that Dhanda had been found guilty on this fourth charge also.The mere fact that such a clerical error appears in the formal order does not affect the validity of the order in any way.22. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the separate contentions pressed on behalf of seven of the appellants that the Tribunals below did not consider certain infirmities in the order cannot also be sustained.