/madras-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-employee.html

[11/27, 10:40] Sekarreporter1: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/271119/madras-hc-upholds-dismissal-of-employee.html
[11/27, 10:40] Sekarreporter1: Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld an order of the GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute, 108 Ambulance Services, dismissing an employee from service for alleged misconduct.

Justice S.M.Subramaniam quashed an order of the assistant commissioner of labour, rejecting the petition filed by GVK Emergency Management and Research Institute, to approve its order dismissing its employee R.Saravanan from service.

According to petitioner, they are engaged in providing public utility services and traversing ambulance services, which is essential for the public ‘on no profit basis’ under public private participation. It attends to every emergency situation, be it a medical crisis, a law and order situation or a fire disaster. Therefore, the employees of the petitioner organization are highly equipped and are required to be more vigil, disciplined, responsible and active in their official duty. While so, despite several warnings R.Saravanan did not change his attitude. Hence charge memo was issued for misconduct and after an enquiry, he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed approval petition, which was rejected by the assistant commissioner of labour. Hence, the organisation filed the present petition.

Allowing the petition, the judge said this court was of the opinion that the misconduct stipulated in the service rules submitted by the petitioner-management was similar to that of the misconducts contemplated in the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act. The management granted permission to have a defence assistant to the delinquent employee, by imposing a condition that the delinquent employee has to choose a defence assistant not from the far away place from the place of his work and the defence assistant should be from nearby to the place of his work. Thus, the contention that the defence assistant was denied to the delinquent employee was incorrect and the condition imposed was reasonable and practicable. Thus, the delinquent employee was permitted to have the defence assistant, which was not utilized properly by the delinquent employee in order to defend his case. Contrarily, he
has adopted the tactics with an intention to prolong and protract the enquiry proceedings, which cannot be encouraged by the courts, the judge added.

The judge said in respect of the prima facie case, the ambulance services were sensitive and timely services to the needy person was the prime object of the scheme. Thus, any indiscipline or lapses was to be construed as grave in nature as the delay or timely inaction would cause danger to the life of a person, who deserves an emergency service through ambulance.

Therefore, the charges against the delinquent employee were grave in nature and the level of discipline to be maintained in the ambulance services comparing to the other organizations were entirely different and the level of discipline to be maintained in the ambulance services, undoubtedly, must be high in nature and therefore, the gravity of the charges were to be decided in comparison with the services to be provided with reference to the nature of the services and its importance. Thus, the authority competent has erroneously arrived a
conclusion that no prima facie case was made out and the enquiry was conducted not in a just and fair manner, the judge added.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME