Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a workman employed with Airport Authority of India since 31 December 1975, rose from Auto Electrician Grade-I to Senior Auto Mechanic (SG). He was charged with illegally encroaching upon airport land in village Kondivita, Survey No.104, and running a private garage in the name of his wife. A show cause notice was issued on 27 May 1996, followed by a charge sheet on 11 October 1996 under Regulation 28 of the International Airport Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987. After a domestic enquiry, the respondent imposed dismissal on 1 February 2000. The petitioner's appeal succeeded in part: the Appellate Authority set aside the dismissal but ordered a fresh enquiry and placed him under suspension. A fresh charge sheet was issued on 7 August 2001, and a second enquiry was conducted from 28 November 2001 to 20 June 2002, resulting in a second dismissal order on 10 December 2003. The petitioner's statutory appeal was dismissed on 23 February 2006. The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions seeking reinstatement with back wages and early hearing of his industrial reference. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, passed Part I Award on 17 October 2018 holding the enquiry fair and proper and the findings not perverse, and Part II Award on 30 January 2019 rejecting the reference. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging both awards. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the second enquiry on the same charges violated natural justice, that the Kami Jasti Patrak relied upon by the respondent was forged and pertained to Survey No.35 rather than Survey No.104, that the respondent failed to prove ownership of the land, and that criminal complaints regarding forgery had been mishandled. The available text of the judgment ends during the petitioner's submissions and does not include the court's final analysis or operative order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Fairness of Domestic Enquiry - Part I and Part II Awards - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The petitioner challenged CGIT Awards Part I dated 17.10.2018 and Part II dated 30.01.2019 which upheld the domestic enquiry as fair and proper and rejected the industrial reference. The petitioner contended that a second enquiry on the same charges after the Appellate Authority set aside the first dismissal violated principles of natural justice and constituted double action on identical allegations (Paras 2-5.1).
B) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - Double Enquiry and Natural Justice - International Airport Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, Regulation 28 - The Appellate Authority set aside the first dismissal order dated 01.02.2000 and ordered a fresh charge sheet and suspension. The petitioner alleged that initiating a fresh enquiry on the same charges was irregular and illegal and amounted to victimization (Paras 3.2-5.1).
C) Evidence - Documentary Evidence and Land Ownership - Alleged Forged Kami Jasti Patrak - Not mentioned - The petitioner argued that the Kami Jasti Patrak relied upon by the respondent pertained to Survey No.35 and not Survey No.104, and that the respondent failed to produce a 7/12 extract for Survey No.104. Criminal complaints and CBI enquiry were initiated regarding alleged forgery, but no criminal act was found attributable to any public servant (Paras 5.1-5.4).
D) Criminal Law - Prosecution of Public Servants - Sections 32 and 33 of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 - The petitioner filed criminal writ petitions regarding non-registration of offence for forgery. The High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.22 of 2007 directed filing of a private complaint as no cognizable offence was disclosed, while in Criminal Writ Petition No.1898 of 2012 the court directed proceeding against officials in accordance with law (Paras 5.2-5.3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the domestic enquiry against the petitioner was fair and proper and findings of the enquiry officer were not perverse; whether the punishment of dismissal was justified and proportionate; whether the second enquiry after the appellate authority set aside the first dismissal violated natural justice; whether the charge of land encroachment was proved, particularly ownership of Survey No.104 and authenticity of Kami Jasti Patrak; whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal rightly rejected the industrial reference.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- Industrial dispute reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947
- Fairness of domestic enquiry
- Proportionality of punishment
- Natural justice and double jeopardy
- Burden of proof of land ownership
- Alleged forged document
- Regulation 28 of International Airport Authority of India Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1987
- Sections 32 and 33 of Airport Authority of India Act 1994
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 123
Writ Petition No. 1337 of 2019 with Interim Application (L) No. 13137 of 2021
Mr. Omprakash Pandey for Petitioner; Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Mr. Ashutosh Gole for Respondent No.1; Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Radha H. Bhandari and Mr. S. D. Shetty i/b M V Kini and Co. for Respondent No.2
Vidyapati Bhagwatpati Tiwari
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India challenging Awards Part I and Part II passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, which upheld domestic enquiry as fair and proper and rejected reference regarding dismissal of petitioner workman.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the CGIT awards and thereby challenge his dismissal from service; prior writ petitions sought reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Aggrieved by CGIT Part-I Award dated 17.10.2018 and Part-II Award dated 30.01.2019 rejecting the industrial reference, petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the awards.
Previous Decisions
First dismissal order dated 01.02.2000 was set aside by Appellate Authority on 29.03.2001 with direction for fresh enquiry and suspension. Second dismissal order dated 10.12.2003 was upheld by Appellate Authority on 23.02.2006. CGIT passed Part-I Award on 17.10.2018 upholding enquiry as fair and proper and Part-II Award on 30.01.2019 rejecting the reference. Prior writ petitions disposed of with directions for early hearing and transfer of reference.
Issues
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper and findings of the enquiry officer were not perverse.
Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner was justified and proportionate to the charges of misconduct.
Whether the second enquiry initiated after the Appellate Authority set aside the first dismissal order was legal and not violative of principles of natural justice.
Whether the charge of land encroachment was proved, particularly whether Survey No.104 of village Kondivita belonged to Respondent No.2 and the Kami Jasti Patrak relied upon was forged or pertained to a different survey number.
Whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal rightly rejected the industrial reference.
Submissions/Arguments
The second enquiry was initiated on the same charges after the first dismissal was set aside, violating principles of natural justice and amounting to victimization.
The Kami Jasti Patrak relied upon by Respondent No.2 pertained to Survey No.35 and not Survey No.104, and was a forged document.
Respondent No.2 failed to produce a 7/12 extract standing in its name for Survey No.104 to prove ownership of the land.
Criminal complaints regarding forgery were improperly handled; CBI enquiry found no criminal act attributable to public servants, but later court direction in Criminal Writ Petition No.1898 of 2012 required proceeding against officials.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India to challenge Awards Part – I passed in Reference No.CGIT-2/03 of 2018 and Award Part – II dated 30.01.2019 in Reference No.CGIT-2/03 of 2018 by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai (for short ‘CGIT’) upholding the enquiry against the Petitioner to be fair and proper, upholding the findings of the enquiry officer as not perverse and rejecting the reference.
Whether the action of the management of Airport Director, Airports Authority of India in dismissing Shri V. B. Tiwari, Senior Auto Mechanic (SG) from services with immediate effect vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2003 is justified, proper and in proportionate to the alleged charges of misconduct? If not, to what relief the workman Shri. Tiwari is entitled and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter?
He would submit that the Kami Jasti Patrak in fact pertained to a different land namely Survey No.35 and not Survey No.104 as claimed by Respondent No.2.
Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.22 of 2007 in this Court against the inaction of the police authorities for not registering any offence against the Respondent No.2 and its Officers. By order dated 12.01.2007 at Exhibit-F, page No.81, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that no cognizable offence was disclosed in the complaint as opined by the Assistant Director of Prosecution and Chief Police Prosecutor in his opinion and therefore the Petition was not entertained and Petitioner was directed to file a private complaint.
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as Auto Electrician Grade-I on 31.12.1975 and promoted over time. Show cause notice issued on 27.05.1996; charge sheet under Regulation 28 issued on 11.10.1996; first domestic enquiry conducted from 13.11.1997 onwards; first dismissal order dated 01.02.2000. Statutory appeal filed on 30.06.2000; Appellate Authority set aside dismissal on 29.03.2001 and ordered fresh enquiry and suspension. Fresh charge sheet issued on 07.08.2001; second enquiry conducted from 28.11.2001 to 20.06.2002; second dismissal order dated 10.12.2003. Appeal filed on 27.12.2003 and industrial reference raised vide letter dated 04.02.2004. Writ Petition No.2646 of 2005 disposed of directing Appellate Authority to decide appeal; appeal dismissed on 23.02.2006. Writ Petition No.1932 of 2016 disposed of on 08.09.2016 directing early hearing of reference; Writ Petition No.2699 of 2017 disposed of on 10.01.2018 directing transfer of reference to Presiding Officer. CGIT Part-I Award passed on 17.10.2018; Writ Petition No.3011 of 2018 disposed of on 25.10.2018 directing Part-II award within three months; Writ Petition No.3901 of 2018 withdrawn on 14.01.2019; CGIT Part-II Award passed on 30.01.2019 rejecting reference. Present writ petition filed thereafter.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10 (Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A))
- International Airport Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987: Regulation 28
- Airport Authority of India Act, 1994: Sections 32 and 33
