M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner Management, has challenged the award dated 23.7.1997 passed by respondent No. 1, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 7/92 whereby punishment of withholding of increments imposed by the Management in a disciplinary departmental proceeding has been quashed.
(2.) THE concerned workman, namely, Sri Ram Chandra Mahato was serving as Sub -Accountant in CPF Section HMBP, HEC, Ranchi since 1963. He was proceeded departmentally on the charge that while posted as Sub -Accountant CPF Section HMBP, HEC in the year, 1985 he failed to maintain full integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he, being in collusion with one Sri Ram Janak Singh and another, delivered two cheques being cheque No. SA/5 -714510 dated 22.4.1984 and cheque No. SA/5 -715978 dated "8.6.1985 to fictitious persons. The Management as well as the concerned workman adduced evidence before the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report holding that although the two cheques, referred to above, were delivered to fictitious persons but it could not be proved that the said cheques were delivered to fictitious persons by the concerned workman. The Enquiry Officer further held that the possibility of collusion of the concerned workman with Sri Ram Janak Singh and other in the said delivery of the cheques to fictitious persons cannot be ruled out. He further held that the allegation of lack of diligence and devotion to duty has been established as against the concerned workman. On the basis of this finding, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of withholding of four increments. The Labour Court, in the reference case, has recorded a finding on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The Labour Court found that the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order of punishment on the basis of the said enquiry report considering that the charge has been proved. Although the order of punishment was marked as Ext. 3 in the Reference Case but curiously enough the same has not been annexed with this writ petition. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced hereinbelow : 'The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the concerned workman contended that Ext. 3, the order of punishment, is based on the domestic enquiry report which is perverse and as such the order of punishment is perverse. From Ext. 3, the order of punishment it appears that disciplinary authority passed the order on the basis of enquiry report considering that the Enquiry Officer held the concerned workman guilty of the charges framed against him. From Ext. 1 it appears that the concerned workman was charged as follows : That the said Sri R.C. Mahto while posted and functioning as Sub -Accountant CPF Section (finance) HMBP, HEC, Ranchi during the year, 1985 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he being in collusion with Shri Ram Janak Singh and another delivered cheque No. SA/5714510 dated 22.4.1985 and SA/715978 dated 8.6.1985 to fictitious persons. From the charges as stated above it appears that the concerned workman was facing to charges - -firstly failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and secondly for delivering cheques to fictitious persons in collusion with Shri Ram Janak Singh. From Ext. 2 it appears that Enquiry Officer gave finding that it has not been established that cheques were disbursed to fictitious persons by Shri R.C. Mahto. But the Enquiry Officer found the concerned workman to have acted in a very negligent manner to his assignment. But from Ext. 3 it appears that disciplinary authority while considering the enquiry report, Ext. 2, considered the concerned workman to be guilty for both the charges. Thus it is clear that Ext. 3 is against the enquiry report, Ext. 2."
(3.) FROM perusal of the award it appears that the matter was reported to CBI and investigation was done and, thereafter, charge -sheet was submitted against four persons excluding the concerned workman. The CBI, in its report, has recorded that no charge was proved against the concerned workman. Paragraph 14 of the award is reproduced hereinbelow : "It is further contended on behalf of the concerned workman supporting the case of victimization that one Mohan Singh was also charged for the same offence but subsequently he was exonerated of the charges. It is further stated that the matter was reported to CBI who after investigation, submitted charge -sheet against four persons excluding the name of the concerned workman. From rejoinder filed on behalf of the Management it appears that Mohan Singh was exonerated of charges as the CBI found no prima facie case against him. To wonder it is not mentioned as to why the concerned workman was punished for the same charge on the same fact that CBI submitted no charge -sheet against the concerned workman. WWI in Court also stated that Mohan Singh and Ram Janak Singh were also facing the charges as levelled against the concerned workman. But Sri Mohan Singh was exonerated of the charges and made witness against the concerned workman. He further stated that the concerned workman was not named in the charge -sheet submitted by CBI. There is no cross -examination to this witness on the above facts. MWI is also silent in chief about the fact stated above. This witness denied to have knowledge if Mohan Singh was also working in the department in which Ram Chandra Mahto was working. He showed innocence regarding Ram Janak Singh. The witness is also ignorant of the charges levelled against the concerned workman. In the end he admitted that he has no personal knowledge regarding Ram Chandra Mahto, Mohan Singh and Ram Janak Singh. From his evidence it appears that he is not competent to depose on the facts involved in this case." ;