R.C.Purohit v. State DATE OF ORDER & Ors.

29/1/2007 HON'BLE SHRI RAJESH BALIA, J. Mr.J.P.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.L.R.Upadhaya, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against the disciplinary proceedings and orders passed in disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by which the petitioner was visited with punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect after holding an inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 7/10/1995 (Annex.10) in terms of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules. Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment by finding the charge against the petitioner proved vide order dated 8/8/1997 (Annex.12). The appeal against which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 18/2/1999 (Annex.13) and review application was also dismissed by the Reviewing Authority on 29/9/2000 (Annex.14). The material produced in this petition consist of charge sheet served on the petitioner, defence taken by the petitioner and subsequent orders passed by respective authorities - 2 - noticed hereinabove. Another important document which is on record is the award of labour court dated 4/1/1989. As it shall presently be noticed, it is a clear case of non application of mind, even without caring to see the relevant dates, so much so that if the award & charge sheet is read together no foundation for issuing charge sheet is made out. Charge sheet dated 7/10/95 (Annex.10) which contains the only charge levelled against the petitioner, reads as under:- “1- यह क(cid:5) उक श(cid:9) आर.स(cid:9). प(cid:14)र(cid:15)कहत, सह(cid:17)य(cid:5) अभ(cid:20)यनत(cid:17), जन स(cid:25)(cid:17)स(cid:26)य अभ(cid:20). व(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:17)ग, क(cid:29)भ(cid:30)(cid:31)ग उपखण" पथम, न(cid:17)ग&र म’ क(न(cid:17)(cid:31)(cid:5) 1.1.83 स)

11.10.84 त(cid:5) सह(cid:17)य(cid:5) अभ(cid:20)यनत(cid:17) (cid:5)) प( पर प(सथ(cid:17)वपत थ) तब शम नय(cid:17)य(cid:17)(cid:30)य, ब(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:17)न)र (cid:5)) (cid:25)(cid:17)( स(cid:31)खय(cid:17) 2/87 ए(cid:25) 3/87 जजसम’ पक(cid:5)(cid:17)र कमश: श(cid:9) (cid:5)) (cid:25)(cid:30) (cid:5)(cid:14) म(cid:17)र प(cid:14)त जयन(cid:17)र(cid:17)यण (cid:25)म(cid:17)3, इजन(र(cid:17) (cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:30)(cid:15)न(cid:9), न(cid:17)ग&र बन(cid:17)म सह(cid:17)य(cid:5) अभ(cid:20)यनत(cid:17), क(cid:29)भ(cid:30)(cid:31)ग ह5ण" पमप उपखण" पथम, न(cid:17)ग&र ए(cid:25)(cid:31) श(cid:9) म(cid:15)हमम( हब(cid:9)ब प(cid:14)त श(cid:9) म(cid:15)हमम( अ(cid:30)(cid:9) बन(cid:17)म सह(cid:17)य(cid:5) अभ(cid:20)यनत(cid:17), क(cid:29)भ(cid:30)(cid:31)ग ह5ण" पमप उपखण", न(cid:17)ग&र थ)। उक (cid:25)(cid:17)( म’ शम नय(cid:17)य(cid:17)(cid:30)य ब(cid:9)(cid:5)(cid:17)न)र द(cid:17)र(cid:17) प(cid:17)ररत अ(cid:25)(cid:17)"3 क(न(cid:17)(cid:31)(cid:5)

4.1.89 (cid:5)) अन(cid:14)स(cid:17)र औद(cid:15)भग(cid:5) व(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:17)( अभ<भनयम <(cid:17)र(cid:17) 25 एफ (cid:5)> अन(cid:14)प(cid:17)(cid:30)न(cid:17) नह?(cid:31) (cid:5)रन) (cid:5)) (cid:5)(cid:17)रण समब(cid:31)भ<त पक(cid:5)(cid:17)र@ (cid:5)(cid:15) मज(Aर?, कभतपAभत3 ए(cid:25)(cid:31) अनय खरC (cid:5)(cid:17) (cid:20)(cid:14)गत(cid:17)न (cid:5)रन) (cid:5)) (cid:5)(cid:17)रण र(cid:17)जय सर(cid:5)(cid:17)र (cid:5)(cid:15) - 3 - भनरथ3(cid:5) ह(cid:17)भन ह(cid:14)ई जजस(cid:5)) भ(cid:30)य) आप वयवकगत रप स) जजमम)((cid:17)र हH।" From the perusal of the charge sheet it is apparent that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, PHD, Drilling Sub-Division-I, Nagaur from 1/1/1983 to 11/10/1984 only. The charge is in relation to effecting illegal retrenchment of two workmen, disputes in relation to which were subjected to labour court vide labour cases no. 2/87 & 3/87. There is no dispute that both the workmen were retrenched simultaneously on the same date.

The award dated 4/1/1989 in the case of Mohd. Habib is placed on record, which is Annex.9. The dispute referred is about the alleged dismissal of the workman on 29/12/1984 i.e. to say more than a month after the petitioner has ceased to hold the office of Assistant Engineer, Drilling Sub-Division-I, Nagaur. Wages upto 28/12/84 having been received by the workman under the order of Payment of Wages Authority under a separate order. Finding of labour court is that termination of services of the workman w.e.f. 29/12/1984 was without compliance of the directives of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If the two orders were read together, the foundation of the charge sheet appears to be non-existent, from the order of - 4 - the disciplinary authority it appears that disciplinary authority assumed the termination to be due to order dated 1.10.1984, which was referred to in the award. However, that was not the order of termination but only calling options from the workmen.