Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14423 of 2017
Petitioner :- Niyamtullah
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Pratap Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajeet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh who appears on behalf of the Corporation.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2015 by which punishment was imposed by the respondent no. 4 of stoppage of five annual increments cumulatively and by the order passed by the Appellate Authority – the Regional Manager dated 14.7.2016 by which he has reduced the punishment to stoppage of two annual increments cumulatively and also by the order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the Chief Manager (Operations) – the respondent no. 2 rejecting his Revision as not maintainable.
3. The facts necessary for the decision of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as a Daftri / Peon in the UPSRTC in 1978 and he had been discharging his duties with all sincerity and without any complaint whatsoever for the past several years. His services are governed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employee (other than Officers) Service Rules, 1991.
4. A complaint was made to the Regional Manager, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur that the petitioner did not serve a letter which was endorsed to Zila Yuva Kalyan Evam Pravidhi Adhikari, Gorakhpur which was also noted in the peon book.
5. On this complaint, the petitioner was suspended on 31.5.2013 and served with a charge sheet on 15.6.2013. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.6.2013 to the effect that he has been working sincerely since the very beginning of his service and has not given any cause for complaint, he is semi literate employee and he had served all letters on Officers / Offices where he was supposed to deliver such correspondence.
6. However, the Inquiry Officer rejected the explanation of the petitioner and submitted an enquiry report on which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.6.2015, and after he filed his explanation, the impugned punishment order was passed on 27.8.2015 for directing forfeiture of salary and other allowances during suspension period and also directing stoppage of five annual increments cumulatively.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal which Appeal although was entertained and the order impugned was modified, the Appellate Authority has not considered the case of the petitioner in the right perspective.
8. It has been submitted that one Raja Ram Singh – the Office Assistant was also involved in the same incident, had the allegations against him that he did not send the letter to the Zila Yuva Kalyan Evam Pravidhi Adhikari. The same Inquiry Officer was appointed, but he submitted a separate enquiry report with respect to Raja Ram Singh and on the basis of the said enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 25.2.2016 gave a lesser punishment of stoppage of one increment only and without cumulative effect while forfeiting the salary and allowances for the suspension period.
9. Against the order dated 25.02.2016 Raja Ram Singh filed an appeal which appeal was also allowed by the Chief General Manager by his order dated 8.8.2016 setting aside the punishment of withholding increment completely, however, forfeiting salary and allowances for the suspension period.
10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is a low paid and semi-literate employee and against the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority the petitioner had filed his appeal to the respondent No. 3 wherein he had taken a specific ground with regard to discrimination in punishment which was not considered in its right perspective by the disciplinary authority. He partly allowed the appeal only to the extent of reducing the punishment to withholding of two increments cumulatively which still is a major penalty.
11. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that his revision against the said order has been rejected by the respondent No. 2 only on the ground of maintainability.
12. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it had been observed that if the incident is the same which had led to charge sheet being issued to two or more employees simultaneously and where the charges are the same against the employees, then, while inflicting the punishment, the disciplinary authority shall take into account that there is no discrimination.
13. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are as follows:-
(i). AIR 1984 SC 1499: Sengara Singh Vs. State of Punjab;
(ii). (2010) 5 SCC 783: State of U.P. Vs. Raj Pal Singh;
(iii). (2013) 3 SCC 73: Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; and
(iv). (2015) 1 SCC (Labour & Services) 49: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement rendered in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra has observed in paragraph - 13 that the delinquent employee was only a peon and much-less educated. A similarly situated other employee was let off by the Corporation by awarding the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect, however, the delinquent employee was dismissed from service. Such kind of discrimination should not have been practised by the Employer for similar set of charges. Therefore, the appeal against High Court's order allowing the writ petition of respondent Triveni Saran Mishra preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India was dismissed.
15. The judgements of this Court which have also been relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner are as follows:-
(i). Banshi Lal Singh Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission, Allahabad: (1999) 3 SLR 613;
(ii). Vinod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Secretary, Public Works Department and another: 2012 (133) FLR 992; and
(iii). Krishna Murari Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Transport: 2013 (31) LCD 1887.
16. I have perused the order passed by the appellate authority in the case of petitioner and I find that there is a specific mention in the appellate order of the grounds taken by the delinquent employee in the appeal. One of the grounds taken is of discrimination as Raja Ram Singh was let off with much lighter punishment. The appellate authority however has not considered this aspect of the matter at all, nor has considered the degree of culpability of Raja Ram Singh and that of petitioner while passing the impugned order.
17. This Court does not find it appropriate to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned and directing that no punishment be at all given to the petitioner at this stage because the charge sheets issued to two employees have not been filed. This Court cannot give a considered opinion that charges were identical; nor the inquiry report has been filed with respect to culpability of Raja Ram Singh.
18. However, this Court is convinced that the appellate authority, when he was asked to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the appeal, did not notice this ground taken by the delinquent employee in the appeal at all, nor passed any reasoned order thereon.
19. Therefore, the order of the revisional authority and the order of the appellate authority are set aside.
20. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider afresh the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order thereon, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned.
21. The writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 LBY