AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal is barred by limitation. After perusal of the averments made in the limitation petition and hearing learned Counsel for the Appellants on the question of limitation, we are of the view that sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.7.2002, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which he has allowed the writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 12080 of 2001 filed by the writ Petitioner-Respondent and quashed the order dated 28.8.2001 passed by the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation disengaging him from service.
The writ Petitioner-Respondent was engaged on daily wages on 23.5.1983 and while discharging the duties as a Booking Clerk, he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7421 of 2000 for a direction to the Appellant for regularisation of his service. This Court, by order dated 11.8.2000, directed the Appellant to place him at the minimum time scale admissible to the post of Booking Clerk plus D.A., without any other allowances or annual increments. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation, by order dated 26.9.2000, granted time scale to the Respondent subject to the result of the Letters Patent Appeal pending in the Jharkhand High Court. According to the procedure followed in the Appellant-Corporation''s office, the writ Petitioner-Respondent was required to hand over each day''s collection from sale of tickets and hire charges of cars and buses etc. to the Cashier, who was required to deposit the same in the Bank. In case the Cashier was not in a position to deposit the amount because of his being engaged otherwise, he was required to report the matter to the next higher authority, who would make the arrangement for the deposit of the amount in the Bank. On 10.2.2001, which was a Saturday, the Petitioner-Respondent had collected Rs. 67,000/- from sale of tickets etc. The said amount was to be deposited in the Bank but in disregard to the rules and procedures as mentioned above, the cash was kept in an almirah and the same was locked, and the amount was to be deposited on the next Monday in the Bank. On Monday, when the almirah was opened for taking out the money for being deposited in the Bank, the same was found stolen. The writ Petitioner-Respondent reported the matter to the higher authorities. Thereafter, a First. Information Report was lodged against one Pyod Pati Singh and a charge-sheet has been submitted against him. The writ Petitioner-Respondents has been made a witness in the said case. There was no allegation that the amount was stolen by him but the allegation against him was that because of his negligence in discharge of duty, the loss was caused to the Appellant-Corporation.
On 17.2.2001, the writ Petitioner-Respondent was issued a show-cause notice as to why an appropriate action be not taken against him. The writ Petitioner-Respondent submitted his show-cause asserting that he was not at fault in any way. The said explanation was not found satisfactory and he was verbally asked not to discharge his duty. However, he did not obey the verbal direction and, thereafter, another notice was issued to him on 18.2.2001 asking to explain under what circumstances he was attending the duty and signing the attendance register even though he was asked not to discharge the duty. Thereafter, he filed a writ application in this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 9627 of 2001 for quashing the notice/order, by which he was asked to explain as to why he marked the attendance register when he was stopped to work. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 1.8.2001, disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Appellant-Corporation to dispose of the explanation/show-cause of the writ Petitioner-Respondent by a reasoned order.
Thereafter, the impugnd order was passed disengaging him from service. The said order was challenged again by the writ Petitioner-Respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 12080 of 2001 out of which the present appeal arises; the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 28.8.2001 and remitted the matter to the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation to pass a fresh order in the light of the observation made therein.
It appears that the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 28.8.2001 on the ground that the same was penal in nature by virtue of it having been passed in violation of the provisions contained in Ar-tide 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. He held that the authorities had not given full opportunity to the writ Petitioner-Respondent to lead evidence in support of his assertion and the report submitted by the authority of the Appellant-Corporation had been relied upon without making the said report available to him.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Corporation submitted that the writ Petitioner-Respondent was engaged on daily wages and he had no right to hold the post and he was disengaged on the ground of his unsatisfactory service and the order dated 28.8.2001 was not penal in nature as such the provision contained in Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution is not applica-ble in his case.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ Petitioner-Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that though the engagement of his client was on daily wage basis but he continued in service for a long period i.e. since 1983 and, thus, acquired a temporary status and was entitled to the protection as provided under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge rightly held that the disengagement of the writ Petitioner-Respondent was not a simpliciter but it cast a stigma on him.
The admitted position is that the writ Petitioner-Respondent has been working in the Appellant-Corporation for about 19 years. It is also an admitted position that there is no allegation that he had stolen the amount. That allegation has been made against other employee of the Appellant-Corporation as stated above. The only allegation against him was that he was negligent or careless in discharge of his duty. When the Cashier was not agreeable to deposit the amount in the Bank in terms of the procedure, he ought to have reported the matter to the higher authorities. The writ Petitioner-Respondent''s assertion from the very beginning is that he requested the Cashier to deposit the amount but the latter did not do the same. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.8.2001, it is clear that the Managing Director has disengaged him on ground that he did not discharge his duty properly, responsibly and also probably deliberately. Thus the order cannot be termed as disengagement simpliciter but the same has been, passed after casting stigma against him.
The law is well-settled that when a casual employee or daily wages employee remains in service for a longer period, he acquires a temporary status and once he acquires a temporary status, he is entitled to the constitutional protection as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution and other articles dealing with the service under the State [see Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India and Others,
Thus, the impugned order not being an order of disengagement simpliciter but being by way of punishment without affording full opportunity to the writ Petitioner-Respondent is vitiated in law and the learned Single Judge has rightly taken the aforesaid view and, accordingly, remitted the matter to the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation.
During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner-Respondent stated that though there is no direct allegation against his client of stealing the money but he is ready to deposit half of the amount stolen i.e. Rs. 35,000/-.
In view of the aforesaid offer made by the writ Petitioner-Respondent and taking into consideration the nature of the allegation, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the Managing Director of the Appellant-Corporation. If the writ Petitioner-Respondent deposits the aforesaid amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirtyfive thousand only) within six weeks from today, then no further action shall be taken against him in the matter and he should be allowed to continue on the post as daily wages employee as he was working from before.
In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction.