1984 (9) TMI 272 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the services of Shri R.K. Kindra were terminated illegally and unjustifiably ? Whether the enquiry proceedings were initiated by the principles of natural justice and equity ? To what relief if any, is the worker entitled ? Held that - If there is absolutely no evidence in support or the only allegation of misconduct namely negligence in not keeping one s private cheque book in safe custody, the conclusion is not only not a plausible one but it is wholly perverse and we are in complete agreement with findings recorded Mr. G.C. Jain that the findings of enquiry officer were perverse and the enquiry was wholly vitiated. Where the order of dismissal is sought to be sustained on a finding in the domestic enquiry which is shown to be perverse and the enquiry is vitiated as suffering from non- application of mind the only course open to us is to set it aside and consequently relief of reinstatement must be granted and nothing was pointed to us why we should not grant the same. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period of his absence from service. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to full back-wages and all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award of the arbitrator Shri Kakkar is set aside and the appellant is re- instated in service with full back-wages and consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully thrown out from service, and the costs of this appeal quantified at ₹ 3,000. The back-wages payable to the appellant and the costs awarded herein shall be paid to him within 2 months from today. The appellant shall be physically reinstated in service within a week from today. The appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits f his continuous service.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and justification of the termination of services of the appellant.
2. Adherence to principles of natural justice and equity in the enquiry proceedings.
3. Entitlement of the worker to relief, if any.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Justification of Termination:
The appellant, Rajinder Kumar Kindra, was accused of misappropriating funds and manipulating accounts while working as a salesman. The charges included aiding and conspiring with the Manager-cum-Cashier, Shri R.S. Negi, to defraud the company. An enquiry officer, Shri V.K. Soni, found the appellant guilty of gross negligence and misconduct, leading to his dismissal. The appellant contested the findings, claiming the charges were baseless and the dismissal unjustified. The arbitrator, Shri G.C. Jain, concluded there was no evidence to support the charges of misappropriation, manipulation of accounts, or conspiracy, deeming the enquiry officer's findings perverse. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed unjustified, and the appellant was entitled to reinstatement. However, due to procedural delays, a second arbitrator, Shri N.L. Kakkar, was appointed, who upheld the dismissal based on the third charge of negligence in handling his cheque book. The Supreme Court found that the charges were unsupported by evidence and the findings of Mr. Kakkar were perverse, leading to the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and benefits.

2. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice and Equity:
The employer contended that the enquiry was fair, providing the appellant with full opportunity to participate, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence. However, the arbitrator, Shri G.C. Jain, found that the enquiry was vitiated due to the lack of evidence supporting the charges. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the findings were based on no legal evidence and suffered from non-application of mind, thus violating principles of natural justice and equity. The subsequent arbitrator, Shri N.L. Kakkar, failed to properly analyze the evidence, leading to a perverse conclusion. The Supreme Court emphasized that findings based on no legal evidence or conjectures are unsustainable, reinforcing the need for adherence to natural justice and equity in such proceedings.

3. Entitlement to Relief:
The appellant sought reinstatement with full back wages. The Supreme Court noted that the employer's contention of the appellant being gainfully employed was unsupported by credible evidence. The appellant's assistance to his father-in-law in a coal depot was not considered gainful employment. The Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to full back wages and all consequential benefits due to the unjustified termination. The employer was directed to reinstate the appellant within a week and pay the back wages and costs within two months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the award of arbitrator Shri Kakkar, and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and consequential benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of evidence-based findings and adherence to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The employer was also directed to pay the costs of the appeal.