The order of suspension was number passed as a measure of penalty within the meaning of the Rules.
Regulation 23.1.6 reads, thus 23.1 MISCONDUCT Without prejudice to the generality of the term Misconduct the following acts of omission and companymission shall be treated as Misconduct 23.1.6 Drunkenness, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the Company or outside the premises, where there is a nexus between employment and such companymission and or where such behaviour is likely to affect the image of the Company.
1 and 3.
Had the action of the Management and the disciplinary authority were actuated by malice, the Appellant would number have been exonerated on two very serious charges.
The terms and companyditions of his services indisputably were governed by the Rules framed in terms of Section 40 B of the Factories Act, 1948.
A prayer for adjournment made by the Respondent herein that the matter be posted after 15.4.1998 as the officers were busy in relation to closing of financial year, was refused.
You also threatened MHR with dire companysequences.
Rule 23 provides for discipline and appeal regulations and disciplinary action procedure.
Indisputably, the Appellant herein was chargesheeted on 20th May, 1996 on the following charges You have file a writ petition No.
Rules 4, 5 and 8 of the Rules which are relevant for our purpose read as under Pay, allowances and other benefits The scale of pay, allowances and other benefits such as Leave, Provident Fund, Bonus, Gratuity, Medical facilities, Residence, etc.,
10684 of 1996 in the Honble High Court at Allahabad against Labour Secretary, U.P., other Government Officials and HMT in which you have filed an affidavit on oath on 28.02.1996 at 10.30 A.M. in front of Oath Commissioner, Allahabad and on this date number only card is punched showing you to be present in the factory but you have also marked yourself present in the attendance register maintained by you.
It is true that in terms of sub rule 3 of Rule 14 of the Rules an appeal was maintainable before the State Government.
The Appellant herein admittedly obtained the subsistence allowance offered to him without any demur whatsoever.
The Appellant was appointed as a welfare officer.
In the meanwhile, upon companysidering the show cause filed by the Appellant, herein, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.02.1998.
The memo of appeal was also number furnished to the Respondent.
Every other Safety Officer shall be given appropriate status companyresponding the status of an officer holding a position next below other departmental heads in the factory Punishment The occupier of the factory may impose upon any Safety Officer any one or more of the following penalties, namely suspension removal or dismissal from service reduction in rank withholding of increment including stoppage of an efficiency bar censure and warning Provided that numberorder imposing any such penalty on a Safety Officer shall be made except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of such charges and where it is proposed, after such enquiry, to impose on him any such penalty until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced or any other material being used against him during such enquiry.
Rule 23.3 provides for suspension pending enquiry.
In the departmental proceedings, the Appellant, herein did number deny or dispute that he had used indecent language and also abused the officer.
The Labor Commissioner by reason of an order dated 12th April, 1998 allowed the appeal preferred by the Appellant, herein against the order of suspension dated 20th May, 1996.
On perusal of your records, it also appears that you pursued a full time companyrse in Post Diploma in Industrial Safety in 1985 86 from Regional Labour Institute, Kanpur and showed the same period in your experience with Indian Telephone Industries Limited, Raebareli, at the time of filling in your application from the employment.
From the order dated 12th April, 1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, it appears, he allowed the appeal preferred by the Appellant, herein inter alia on the ground Dismissal from service during the pendency of Appeal against suspension of the petitioner appellant is against the set rulings numberms, which indicates the malafide intention of the management against petitioner appellant Vide letter dated 29.10.1997 of the General Technical Manager of the factory informed the petitioner appellant that all the charges against him found proved, but numberfurther disciplinary action will be taken during the pendency of writ petition against suspension in the Honble High Court but vide letter 08.01.1998, the Director Personal and occupier Sh.
9.4.1998 was the date fixed for hearing of the parties which was a holiday.
Rule 23.3.2 provides that an employee under suspension shall be entitled to subsistence allowance.
As numbericed hereinbefore, the Appellant himself accepted that he was in tense mood while attending the prima facie enquiry.
He preferred an appeal before the Labour Commissioner in terms of Rule 14 of the U.P. Factories Safety Officers Rules, 1984 for short the Rules .
The companytention is rejected.
to be granted to the Safety Officer and other companyditions of their service shall be the same as those of other officers of companyresponding status in the factory.
On 18.05.1996 at about 4.00 P.M. when you were questioned by MHR in presence of PMR regarding the above, you got agitated during the prima facie enquiry and abused MHR in filthy language and said that all these things were being done at the behest of Mr. Kaul, GTM.
The Enquiry Officer came to the companyclusion that both the Management and the witnesses companyroborated each others statements and although they had been cross examined thoroughly, numbercontradiction was found in their statements in regard to the said charge.
A writ petition was filed by him which was disposed of directing that the appeal preferred by him against the order of suspension be disposed of by the Labour Commissioner within the period specified therein.
R.A Sharma informed the petitioner appellant about proving only one charge seeking defence clarification about so called show cause numberice and vide letter 21.02.1998, dismissing the service of the petitioner appellant due to unsatisfactory defence, found against each others verdict and malafidely included No evidence has been produced against petitioner appellant against the charge for which he has been dismissed from services.
Status The Chief Safety Officer or the Safety Officer in the case of factories where only one Safety Officer is required to be appointed shall be given the status of a departmental head or a senior executive in the factory and he shall work directly under companytrol of the Chief Executive of the factory.
Suspension is of three kinds.
Evidently, the disciplinary authority was number biased against the Appellant number any malice has been attributed to him.
On companypletion of enquiry, a show cause numberice was issued to him on 8.01.1998 as to why punishment of dismissal be number awarded.
2 exonerated him in respect of Charges No.
An order of suspension may be passed by way of punishment in terms of the companyduct rules.
On an allegation that he had companymitted acts of misconduct, he was placed under suspension.
It is also number in dispute that the Respondent, herein had framed HMT Limited Conduct, Discipline Appeal Rules which came into force on and from 27.6.1988.
An order of suspension can also be passed, if such a provision exist in the rule laying down that in place of the full salary, the delinquent officer shall be paid only the subsistence allowance specified therein.
In the meanwhile, the Labour Commissioner issued numberice to the Respondent directing it to appear on 2.4.1998.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith the Respondent filed a writ petition before the Uttaranchal High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment and order has been allowed.
Leave granted.
Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.22516 of 2004 B. SINHA, J .
The companytention of Mr. Desai that the disciplinary proceedings were actuated by malice cannot be accepted for more than one reason.
Furthermore, when a charge has been proved, the question of exonerating the Appellant on the ground of purported malice on the part of the Management does number arise.
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent herein as a Safety Officer.
The Enquiry Officer while holding the Appellant guilty of misconduct in respect of Charge No.
