Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18111 of 2020 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Ramesh Ch. Chakraborty …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, OSRTC and Others …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
13. In view of this principle, and having perused all the relevant documents again, including the enquiry report, this Court does not find any substance for re-opening the enquiry. 14. The contention of the Petitioner that due process was not adhered to by the authorities holds no ground. This Court, in its judgment for W.P. (C) No.24398/2017 dated 16.05.2018, issued an order to ensure that due 3(2013) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 301. Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 procedure was followed. Subsequently, the petitioner was served a show-cause notice to which he responded. An enquiry was conducted by the concerned officer with the petitioner’s participation. The enquiry report and show-cause notice were provided to the petitioner, after which the penalty was imposed. 15. Given the adherence to due process, it is not appropriate for this Court to re-examine the evidence or arrive at a conclusion different from that of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has been given ample opportunity to defend himself, and the proposed punishment is commensurate to the charges levelled and proved against him. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 16th July, 2024/ Page 8 of 8
Arguments
Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Adv. (for OSRTC) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-01.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -16.07.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has made a prayer before this Court to quash the order of the OSRTC disengaging him from his duty as a conductor, as well as the consequential order issued after the inquiry was conducted. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 (i) The petitioner was engaged as a conductor with Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (OSRTC) since 26.06.1993. On 06.11.2017, while he was performing his duties as a conductor, a surprise check by the Divisional Traffic Manager (DTM) at Tangi revealed six passengers without tickets on the bus he was overseeing (Bus No. OD-09H-4645). (ii) The DTM issued an immediate order of disengagement on 10.11.2017, without providing the Petitioner an opportunity for a hearing. (iii) Aggrieved by the disengagement, the Petitioner approached this High Court through W.P. (C) No. 24398/2017. On 16.05.2018, this Court quashed the disengagement order, directing the authorities to take a fresh decision after issuing a show-cause notice and providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. (iv) Following this Court’s order/ the OSRTC issued a letter on 17.07.2018/ demanding a show-cause reply from the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted his show-cause reply on 10.08.2018. (v) The OSRTC conducted an enquiry and, on 29.09.2018, concluded that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges. A penalty of Rs. 3000 (including fines and penalties) was imposed, and his security deposit was forfeited. (vi) Aggrieved by the action of OSRTC, the Petitioner approached this Court, seeking to quash the disengagement order dated 10.11.2017, and the consequential order of OSRTC dated 29.09.2018, arguing that these orders were issued without following due process and were unjust. Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner contends that the order of disengagement was issued without following due process of law, which is both illegal and arbitrary. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that this action was taken without giving him an opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. (ii) He further contends that he has served as a conductor since 1993 and has consistently performed his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities, including being entrusted with duties during crises and generating significant profits. Hence, the punishment for an alleged shortage of six tickets, amounting to Rs. 1290/- is excessively harsh and unreasonable. (iii) The Petitioner submits that the enquiry was conducted in a hasty and biased manner, without giving him a fair chance to defend himself or cross-examine witnesses. The reporting officer was not present, and the enquiry report was prepared with discrepancies. (iv) He argues that his contract was not renewed arbitrarily and without just cause, and further submits that no proper show cause notice was issued before the disengagement, violating the principles of natural justice. (v) The petitioner highlights that a previous court order quashed the disengagement order for not following natural justice and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, which was not properly adhered to by the authorities. Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 (vi) The petitioner seeks the quashing of the disengagement order and related consequential orders, requesting the court to admit the writ application, issue notice to the opposite parties, call for the records, and pass any other orders deemed fit and proper. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24398/2017. The Court remitted the matter back to the concerned authority for a fresh decision. Following this direction, the D.T.M., OSRTC, BBSR re- enquired into the matter and provided the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The re-enquiry concluded that the charges were fully established, and the disciplinary authority ruled: a. The petitioner must pay fines and penalties amounting to Rs. 3000/- for the M.V. fine, Rs. 954/- for penalty, and Rs. 1290/- for usual charges related to the six passengers without tickets. b. The petitioner’s agreement/ which ended on 29.02.2018/ would not be renewed. c. The petitioner’s security deposit would be forfeited. (ii) He further submits that the state government has service rules for regulating duties of transport staff as per Transport Order No. 8/64, effective from 1-6-64. According to Chapter-III (3) of this order, if passengers are found without valid tickets, it is presumed that the running staff intended to misappropriate the fare. This is construed as misconduct and dishonesty. Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 (iii) He reiterated that petitioner’s agreement was not renewed after 28.02.2018, and after proper hearing, the corporation decided to disengage him. (iv) He further contended that the petitioner violated Transport Order 8/64 and clauses 3 and 4 of his agreement, justifying the OSRTC’s decision to disengage him. Therefore, there is no illegality in the OSRTC’s actions. Accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents. The State Government has established service rules for station, traffic, and enforcement staff of the State transport service, as per Transport Order No. 8/64. According to Chapter III (3) of this order, if passengers or luggage are found without valid tickets during a bus inspection, it is presumed they were carried with the intent to misappropriate fare or freight. Claims that tickets were about to be issued were not acceptable and such instances were considered misconduct and dishonesty by the running staff. 6. Consequently, the petitioner was disengaged from his service on account of violation of such rules on 10.11.2017, and was not provided an opportunity for hearing before such disengagement. 7. In order to challenge this action, the Petitioner approached this Court through W.P. (C) No. 24398/2017. Resultantly, this Court vide its order dated 16.05.2018, quashed the disengagement order and directed the Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 authorities to take a fresh decision after issuing a show-cause notice and providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. 8. Accordingly, OSRTC issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 17.07.2018, to which he responded on 10.08.2018. Subsequently, OSRTC conducted an enquiry and on 29.09.2018 found the Petitioner guilty. 9. Similar issue was dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava1 where it opined that “The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority...” 10. Furthermore, the Apex Court confronted a similar issue in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India2 where the Court has held in Para 13 as under: “13… The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of that evidence cannot be permitted the to be Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. HC Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718] this Court held at p.728 that if the conclusion, canvassed before 1 (2021) SUPREME COURT CASES 612. 2(1996) SUPREME COURT CASES 749. Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Jul-2024 16:36:16 upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 11. It is, thus, an established principle that the scope of judicial review in such disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The power of judicial review by Constitutional Courts focuses on assessing the decision- making process rather than the merits of the decision. The aim is to ensure fairness in the decision-making process, not in the outcome of the decision. 12. The Apex Court, in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Anr.3 has held in Para 17 as under: “17…the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial, and in spite of the fact that the same are quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal, the doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply in such cases, but the principle of preponderance of probabilities would apply. The court has to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent had committed a misconduct. However, the said conclusion should be reached on the basis of the test of what a prudent person would have.”