Partly allowed

P. Seetharamulu, v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Telangana HC13 Dec 2012WP/22095/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice N. Ravi Shankar partly allowed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of a Labour Court Award confirming the petitioner's dismissal for theft. The Court held that dismissal was disproportionate absent recovery of stolen items or clear proof of collusion, especially given lesser penalties imposed on co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner reinstated without back wages; continuity of service granted only for notional increments; impugned Award modified.

P. Seetharamulu, Vs The Singareni… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 22095 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner is seeking Certiorari to quash the Award dated 10.01.2005 passed in I.D.No.216 of 2001 on the file of the Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short, Labour Court), by which it confirmed his removal from service.

¶5

2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as General Mazdoor in Singareni Collieries Company Limited in Shed No.1 of OC Stores of Manuguru of the said organization. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on a charge that he committed theft or misappropriation of certain property belonging to the 1^st respondent. It would be useful to set out the whole charge as it also contains the material on which it is based as relating to the misconduct of the

¶6

petitioner pertaining to the said charge.

¶7

“You are working as General Mazdoor in Shed No.1 of OC Stores, Manuguru. On 29.8.95 while you were on duty at about 12.00 Noon, you have advised Sri John another General Mazdoor of Stores to throw away the empty packing boxes, without the knowledge of incharge clerk Sri RCS Reddy, who was inspecting the stock at that time. Apprehending foul play, Sri John was prevented to do so by Sri RCS Reddy. On verification of the stock it was found that the following material worth approx. Rs.5,38,000/- was missing.

¶8

Sl	Code No.	Part No.	Description	Quantity
No.
1	6143075610	AR-3015576	Injectors	54 Nos.
2	6143096302	AR-3239803	-do-	07 Nos.
3	6143950775	AR-3239803	-do-	13 Nos.
4	6143950969	AR-3016675	-do-	18 Nos.
5	6143951032	AR-3239790	-do-	35 Nos.
6	6143100573	AR-30422200-K-3	Gear Pumps	10 Nos.

¶9

It is an established procedure to issue stores materials along with its packings. Contrary to this, you have advised Sri John, General Mazdoor, Stores to throw away some empty packing boxes from shed No.1 without knowledge of Sri RCS Reddy, Incharge Clerk. Thus you have attempted to destroy the evidence by trying to throw away the empty packing boxes through Mr. John, General Mazdoor. This clearly indicates that you have fraudulently stolen the above mentioned material and tried to manoeuvre the situation by suppressing the facts and misleading the Management.”

¶10

3. In the domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer examined several witnesses and recorded the gist of the statements of each of the witnesses, and by his report dated 17.07.1996 concluded that the charge against the petitioner was proved.

¶11

4. Ultimately, the 1^st respondent/ General Manager of Singareni Collieries, after giving show cause notices and calling for the explanations of the petitioner, dismissed him from service by his order dated 31.01.1998. Questioning that dismissal order, the petitioner raised aforesaid I.D. No.216 of 2001 and was unsuccessful there.

¶12

5. In this Award, the Labour Court, however, made certain observations with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner and imposition of lesser punishments on other employees, but while confirming the dismissal order, it however directed payment of compensation to the petitioner as indicated by it.

¶13

6. Smt. Udayasri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued at length about the merits of the matter and pointed out that the evidence on record was not at all sufficient to sustain the charge framed against the petitioner and the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not consider these aspects at all and the Labour Court also failed to notice the same and consequently the Award should be set aside and the petitioner should be directed to be reinstated with all benefits. On the other hand, Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, pointed out that the evidence on record is sufficient and this Court cannot go into the same now.

¶14

7. The charge framed against the petitioner has already been extracted supra. It is brought to my notice that though a criminal case was also registered, the above properties i.e. injectors stated to be worth Rs.5,38,000/- could not be recovered by the police. Further, Smt Udayasri also relied upon the judgement dated 27.08.2009 passed in

¶15

S.C.No.201 of 1999 by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, whereby the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 409 IPC, pertaining to the very same theft or misappropriation of the aforementioned injectors worth Rs.5,38,000/-. Of course the value of the injectors is mentioned as Rs.5,30,000/- in the criminal case and it is stated that apart from the injectors, ten gear pumps belonging to the 1^st respondent were also said to have been lost. The petitioner’s counsel filed a copy of this judgment and this is not in dispute.

¶16

8. The statements of witnesses Sri RCS Reddy and Sri John who are the other staff members with reference to the charge framed against the petitioner have been discussed by the enquiry officer. It may be noted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working in the Stores Department from where the injectors are said to have been missing. The statement of RCS Reddy who was said to be the incharge Clerk of the Stores on 29.08.2005 i.e. the date of theft or misappropriation would show that he instructed the petitioner to keep intact 12 Nos. of injectors received on 29.08.1995 along with another 18 Nos. of injectors received on 13.08.1995 and look after the Stores section. He has however seen Sri John throwing away some empty boxes relating to injectors and Sri RCS Reddy says that when he questioned John, he in turn replied that it was the petitioner who told him to do so. When the boxes were checked, they were found empty showing that the injectors were missing. The statement of Sri John also reads on similar lines.

¶17

9. What should be noted is that no evidence is forthcoming in the enquiry report as to who were the persons to whom the injectors were handedover and how they dealt with them and the said injectors were also not recovered. The only material which was found against the petitioner was that he was found throwing away or instructing John to throw away the empty cardboard boxes from the Stores and the Management says that the petitioner did so only to destroy the evidence of theft. The enquiry report is based on this premise.

¶18

10. It may then be noted that the counter filed by the Mangement before

¶19

the Labour Court reads that enquiries were conducted against RCS Reddy and also the relevant Clerk Sri G Rathaiah pertaining to the Stores Department and G Rathaiah was awarded with a punishment of reversion where as RCS Reddy was exonerated and thereafter both were shifted from the OC Stores section. The other person by name K.N. Ramulu, who was an Executive Engineer, and against whom the enquiry was also ordered, died even before the commencement of enquiry. The said Ramulu was A1 in the criminal case S.C.No.201 of 1999 and that case abated against him following his death.

¶20

11. To sum up, looked at any point of view, the charge against the petitioner is based only on his act of throwing away or instructing John to throw away the empty boxes containing the injectors. It appears that the management or even the police could not trace out the actual culprits who ultimately received the stolen properties i.e. injectors. It may be noted that in a departmental enquiry, strict proof of charge may not be necessary as in a criminal case, but in any event, the charge in the departmental enquiry should also be proved with certainty. Here the petitioner was a General Mazdoor and the allegations made against him would show that he colluded with others and facilitated stealthy removal of injectors from the Stores room and based on that act of only throwing away the empty boxes on the ground that the injectors should be delivered in the box in which it is placed and not separately, he was found guilty. What should be noted is that the other gentleman G. Rathaiah was awarded with lesser punishment and perhaps this was due to the fact that the no concrete case could be established against him also except the charge of negligence. The same criteria should be applied to the petitioner also showing negligence on his part perhaps in trying to cover up his lapse for missing of injectors and of course that negligence has proved very costly to the 1^st respondent-management.

¶21

12. Having regard to the above circumstances, in the absence of clear cut evidence about the recovery of the stolen property or the misappropriated property, I am of the opinion that punishment of

¶22

dismissal from service is a disproportionate one when others have been awarded lesser penalties and in fact the punishment should have been lesser.

¶23

13. In these circumstances, while confirming the findings about the charge based on negligence against the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service without back wages. He shall be granted continuity of service only for the purpose of calculating notional increments if any to be counted towards payment of retiral benefits ultimately, and for no other purpose. The impugned Award is partly modified as indicated above and the order relating to award of compensation is set aside.

¶24

14. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶25

______________________________ (JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR)

¶26

13^th December, 2012 KSM / NVL

P. Seetharamulu, v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Seetharamulu, v. The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Babu Vs the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

Director of Agriculture, Vs a.Appalasuri

Md.Hussain Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep.by its

M.A.P. Rao Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

P.Govindiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Jaffar Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary