This judgment sets aside dismissals from service of sanitation workers based on confessed guilt obtained during a strike. The High Court affirmed previous findings that consent was induced to secure salary arrears, ordering reinstatement and back wages subject to fresh disciplinary inquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12009 of 1998
=========================================================== Dilip Mallick, son of late Bindeshwar Mallick, resident of MohallaChoklokman, Ward No.3, Gudri Dom Toli, P.S. Dalsingsarai, Distt. Samastipur
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 246 of 1999 =========================================================== Prem Lal Ram, son of Late Mauzi Ram, resident of MohallaSardarganj, Nawadah, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
2
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 247 of 1999
=========================================================== Prakash Ram, Son of Late Motilal Ram, resident of Village – Chaklokman, Ward No.3, P. S. Dalsidsngsarai, District- Samastipur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
7.Notified Area Committee, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur.... .... Respondent/s with
=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 248 of 1999
=========================================================== Dev Narain Ram, Son of Bhagwan Ram, resident of Rain Basera, Old Sub-Division, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District-Samastipur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Appearance: (In all writ petitions) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, With Amrendra Nath Biswas
3
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhruv Narayan, Sr. Advocate With Mr. O.P. Agarwal, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-04-2015
4
almost identical and therefore, with the consent of the parties have been heard together and are being disposed of by present common judgment, with the consent of the parties.
“27.11.1999. Heard counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondents 4,5 and 6 despite valid service of notice.
The Safai Karmcharies of the Notified Area Committee, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur struck work and sat on Dharna demanding payment of their monthly salaries which were not paid to them for the past 28 months. The petitioner was one of the Safai Karmcharies striking work and sitting on Dharna. For taking the agitational course to press their demand for payment of their monthly salary the
5
striking workers including the petitioner were put under suspension by office order dated 31.3.1997. The suspension order was followed by the issuance of charge sheets, running into several pages, to each of the concerned workmen. In response to the charge sheet each of the concerned workmen apparently filed petitions in which their guilts were admitted and a prayer was made to forgive them for the misconduct and to make payment of their arrears of salary. In reply to the prayer for forgiveness each of the workmen, including the petitioner received order of dismissal, dated 3.7.1999.
I am wholly dissatisfied with the manner in which the entire episode is being presented to have developed and I am not convinced that the admission of guilt was genuine, voluntary and at arms length. It appears more likely to me that the workmen were induced to submit the admission of guilt on the promise or understanding that their admitting the guilt they will be forgive and would be taken back in service. But once they made their admission in black and white and, thus, cut their hands off, the retribution came by throwing them out of service. Lurking behind the veil of appearance I find victimization and unfair labour practice and I am also unable to overlook the fact that the workers were sitting on Dharna for payment of their monthly salary which was not paid to them for the past 28 months.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am constrained to intervene in this matter and I accordingly set aside the order of dismissal, dated 4.7.1998 passed against the petitioner. The petitioner will be, therefore, deemed to be in service and entitled to his back wages etc.
I further direct the District Magistrate, Samastipur to have the entire matter reviewed and reexamined. In case on the basis of the preliminary enquiry the District Magistrate has reasons to believe that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct, he will give appropriate directions for initiating disciplinary proceeding against him which would proceed and conclude in accordance with law. While taking a decision on this question, the District Magistrate shall bear in mind that the petitioner and the other workers were not paid their monthly salary for the past 28 months and this was the main factor which had led to the strike and their sitting on
6
Dharna. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the District Magistrate, Samastipur with a copy of this order by December 20, 1999. It is expected that the Collector will pass appropriate orders in this matter within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. In case no order is passed within that time the matter will stand closed and no further proceeding will be taken against the petitioner.
The petitioner will be entitled to his salary and allowances till date and his future salary will abide by the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Sd/(Aftab Alam)”
remained pending and were subsequently admitted for final hearing. In the meanwhile, the erstwhile Notified Area Committee preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent of this Court vide LPA No. 794 of 2000 ( Yugal Kishore Choudhary, Vice Chairman, Notified Area Committee, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur Vs. State of Bihar & ors) against the order of this Court dated 27.11.1999 passed in CWJC No. 12009 of 1998, the entire text of which has been quoted hereinabove. The only point which erstwhile Notified Area Committee took before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 794 of 2000 that because of the fault on the part of the office of the learned counsel representing the Notified Area Committee, there was no representation on behalf of the Notified Area Committee before
7
learned Single Judge when CWJC No. 12009 of 1998 was taken up and disposed of. The Division Bench, accepting the plea as taken on behalf of the respondent Notified Area Committee passed the following order on 4.1.2001:-
“4.1.2001. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the point of limitation.
Having regard to the facts stated in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.11.1999 passed in CWJC No. 12009 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has set aside the order of dismissal passed by the authority and directed the District Magistrate to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action.
The only point that has been pressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant who are respondents in the writ application due to fault of the office of the learned counsel. It appears that at the stage of admission, notice was issued to the appellantrespondents, ( The Chairman of the Notified Area Committee and others) by order dated 5.7.1999. The notices were validly served. Thereafter when the case was taken up for admission, no body appeared on behalf of the appellant and other respondents and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application on the basis of the averments made in the writ application and the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners. It is stated in the memo of appeal that after service of notice, a vakalatnama was given by the appellant to Srid Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate which was received by his Clerk, but the same could not be filed due to inadvertence. Thus, no body could appear on behalf of the appellant at the time of admission of the case. There was no laches on the part of the appellant. He has already executed the Vakalatnama and handed over the same to the Advocate’s Clerk. The mistake was on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant who did not appear at
8
the time of admission of the case. We are of the view that for such mistake, the appellant should not be allowed to suffer and on chance should be given to the appellant to present his version in the writ application.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted for disposal according to law. The appeal is allowed.
As it is an old case, the same should be placed before an appropriate bench in the Ist week of February, 2001.
Sd/-
admission, in the light of the Division Bench order passed in LPA No. 794 of 2000. In view of a plea taken on behalf of the Notified Area Committee that matters involving similar issues in CWJC No. 6407, 245,247 and 248 all of the year 1999 had been admitted and were pending for final disposal, the said CWJC No. 12009 of 1998 was admitted by order dated 22.2.2001. By the said order dated 22.2.2001 CWJC No. 12009 of 1998 was directed to be heard along with CWJC No. 6407, 245,247 and 248 of the year 1999 and accordingly, these matters have been placed for final hearing together.
9
respondents have taken in the counter affidavits in opposition to the averments made in the writ applications that the petitioners had after service of charge-sheet submitted their show cause replies and they had fairly accepted almost all of the charges levelled against them. It has accordingly been stated in the counter affidavits that in view of the conduct of the petitioners, orders of dismissal from service were rightly passed against them.
10
would be for-given and taken back in service. I do not find any reason, nor any material had been produced before me on the basis of which I am required to take a view different from the one taken in the order dated 27.11.1999 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 12009 of 1998. The orders dated 03.07.1998 which are under challenge in the present batch of writ applications with respect to the individual petitioners which have been brought on record as annexures in their respective writ applications, dismissing the petitioners from service are set aside. I am of the opinion that the dismissal of the petitioners from service, in the manner in which it has been done, is highly arbitrary and abuse of executive power and deserves to be deprecated.
11
as aforesaid.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
ArunKumar/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the orders of dismissal from service based on confessed guilt were legally valid given the circumstances of the strike and suspension.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to back wages despite having admitted guilt in the relevant proceedings.
Whether the established view that consent for guilt was induced by prospects of salary release remains applicable in subsequent reviews.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yugal Kishore Choudhary Vs. State of BiharReferred¶61
Yugal Kishore Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & ors (LPA No. 794 of 2000)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Mallick and others
Smita Devi
Prem Lal Ram
Prakash Ram
Dev Narain Ram
State of Bihar and others
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
