P. Kataiah v. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labourcourt,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4728 of 2011 DATED : 18.08.2016 Between:

P. Kataiah S/o.Guruvaiah, Aged about 50 yrs, R/o.Thangedepalem (V), Shankarapuram (p), Khalahasthi, Chittoor District.

.. Petitioner AND Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, Anantapur & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.4728 of 2011 ORDER:

Petitioner is a driver in respondent-Corporation. On 02.08.2005 he was served with a charge memo which contains two allegations. The first allegation relates to assault on the superior officer and second allegation relates to attending to office in drunken condition. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.12.2005 holding both the charges as proved. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, by order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.01.2006 the petitioner was removed from service. Appeal and the revision filed against the said order of removal are rejected. Petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D.No.167 of 2006 and the Labour Court by order dated 22.10.2010 disallowed the claim and affirmed the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Labour (AP) for respondent No.1 and Sri Aravala Rama Rao, standing counsel for respondent No.2.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no eye witness to the incident alleged to have been happened on the day and no assault took place. Petitioner has entered into the chamber of Assistant Manager to find out the reason why his salary was not credited to the bank account. Petitioner was forced to go to the

chamber of the Assistant Manager, since his wife was bed ridden and was in urgent need of money. He has expected that the salary would be credited, so that the same can be utilised for attending to the medical needs of his wife. Disturbed by non- crediting of money in the account, he went into the chamber and only pleaded for early crediting of the amount. There was no attack as alleged and he did not quarrel with the officer nor assaulted the officer.

3.2.

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was not in drunken condition. There was no proof regarding the status of drunken condition of the petitioner.

He was not subjected to medical examination, whereas, the Inquiry officer holds the charge of drunken condition as proved. No witness was examined on the aspect of drunken condition of the petitioner and only vague statements were made. Furthermore a reading of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer against Charge No.2, would show that he proceeded to hold the second charge as proved based on his reasoning on the first charge. He therefore, submits that the allegation of attending to office in drunken condition was not proved.

3.3. He submits that since the allegation of assault was not proved and there was no eye witness to the incident, the statement of some other witnesses who later rushed into the chamber of Assistant Manager could not have been believed and the version of the petitioner could not have been ignored while holding the charge as proved.

3.4. He would therefore, submit that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not based on cogent evidence available on record. Even though petitioner has highlighted this fact in his representation, appeal and revision, none of the hierarchy of authorities appreciated his contention.

3.5. The Labour Court also proceeded with predetermined notion to

hold the petitioner as guilty. The Labour Court has heavily relied upon on the domestic enquiry to hold him as guilty. The finding of the Labour Court on the second charge is without any basis. There was no proof of petitioner being in intoxicating state of mind when the alleged incident took place. Similarly there was no direct evidence of alleged altercation. It was only a story created by the Assistant Manager (Technical), in order to implicate petitioner. 3.6. Even assuming that there is some basis on the allegation of assault, the background in which the incident took place is required to be noted and petitioner alone cannot be blamed. Without any justification the salary due to the petitioner was not credited to his account. The officer was very rude and was not able to explain the reason.

Even assuming that there is some altercation it was because of the attitude of the officer, whereas, petitioner was penalised. Thus, the punishment imposed is too excessive and disproportionate, particularly in the factual background of the case. In support of the said contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in B. Balaraj Vs Management of Federal Sports and others[1].

4.1.

Learned Standing counsel supports the decision of the authorities. According to learned standing counsel the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that some altercation took place. On the fateful day there was huge noise emanating from the chamber of Assistant Manager, all the employees rushed to the chamber and noticed altercation. All the witnesses categorically stated that some altercation has taken place. The fact that furniture was disturbed would disclose that there was some physical act involved. The petitioner might have behaved in such manner under the influence of alcohol. 4.2. He further submits that there was no reason for the Assistant Manager to make false complaint against the petitioner. The punishment imposed is valid and no interference is called for.

4.3. He would further submit that all the three authorities within the Corporation have taken consistent stand with reference to the delinquence of the petitioner. In order to ensure strict discipline in the Corporation, such acts of assault on the superiors have to be curbed and no lenience can be shown. He would submit that the Labour Court has rightly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited Vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union [2].

5. The issue for consideration is whether the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved ?

6.1. Detailed analysis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer would go to show that there was enough material to prove that petitioner has assaulted the Assistant Manager. In departmental proceedings it is not necessary that there should be clear evidence in support of the allegation. Preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to establish the allegation against an employee. It is a fact that petitioner entered into the chamber of Assistant Manager (Technical). It is also admitted fact that some altercation took place on that day and the same was noticed by several other employees and many of them rushed to the chamber after having heard big noise. The disturbance of furniture in the chamber would also show that some altercation has taken place.

6.2.

There was no allegation of malice against the Assistant Manager. When specifically asked, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was no prior animosity between the petitioner and Assistant Manager.

Therefore, unless and until something has happened in the chamber of Assistant Manager, he would not have made such a complaint.

According to the Assistant Manager, petitioner kicked him with his right leg with chappal on his right shoulder.

Though there was no discussion on the intoxicated

condition of the petitioner in detail, the circumstances point out that petitioner could have been in intoxicated condition to behave in the manner in which the incident took place. The Labour Court has also evaluated entire evidence on record and has not agreed with the contention of the petitioner that there was no altercation. The charges levelled against the petitioner are held proved. 6.3. Even assuming that there is not much of evidence with reference to second charge, the first charge per se can result in imposing severe penalty. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal is too excessive and disproportionate.

7. On the issue of imposing appropriate punishment where the allegation of assault on a superior officer is made, it is settled by several decisions of the Apex Court. In Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd., case (2nd supra), the Supreme Court held that assault on superior officer is serious misconduct and no leniency can be shown. The same principle is reiterated by the Apex Court in Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs Ram Sajivan & Another[3]. In fact in the case of L.K.Verma Vs HMT Ltd., & Another[4] , the Supreme Court affirms the punishment of dismissal on the allegation of verbal abuse. In view of the proposition of law laid down in the later decisions, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cannot come to his rescue. It is also noticed from the facts recorded in the said judgment relied by counsel for petitioner that alleged assault was against co-employee, whereas in the instant case, it was against a superior officer while on duty.

8. There is no perversity in the decision arrived at by the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

____________________ ​ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 18th August, 2016 Rds [1] 1996 (3) ALD 383 (D.B.) [2] 2005 SC 2006 [3] (2007) 9 SCC 86 [4] (2006) 2 SCC 269