Ashok Mishra vs Western Coalfields Ltd. And Others

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the General Manager, WCL Pench Area and order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/78/ 2001.

The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner was working on the post of Cashier in regional workshop of Chandamatta Colliery. He was given the job of Clerk Grade-I. The petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet on the charges of theft, misappropriation of cheques of gratuity payable to the workers on their retirement. It was alleged that he had opened an account in the name of his brother and withdrew an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the said account. An FIR was also lodged in the local police station and the petitioner was also criminally prosecuted. In the meanwhile, the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner came to an end and the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner raised the dispute against his termination which was dismissed by CGIT, Jabalpur vide order dated 19.06.2015. It appears that a criminal case which was pending against the petitioner was decided by judgment dated 23.11.2017 passed by the JMFC, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.4716/2006 and the petitioner was acquitted. After his acquittal, the petitioner filed an application claiming that since his services were terminated on the basis of frivolous allegations, therefore, the remaining salary for his suspension period as well as the Gratuity amount etc., be paid to him. Since the said application remained pending, therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.13349/2019 which was decided by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2019 and the respondents Nos.2 and 3 were directed to consider and decide the representation dated 10.12.2018 made by the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasonable order within a period of thirty days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

In compliance of the directions given by this Court, the respondents by impugned order dated 03.12.2019 has rejected the representation.

Challenging the impugned order passed by the General Manager, WCL Pench Area, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court then he should be treated as exonerated in the departmental enquiry also and, therefore, he is entitled for all the arrears of salary and Gratuity.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that mere acquittal in the criminal case would not ipso facto result in exoneration in the departmental enquiry. Both the proceedings are decided on different footings. A strict proof of guilt is required in a criminal case whereas, the departmental enquiry is decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and, therefore, order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the CGIT, Jabalpur as well as the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the General Manager, WCL Pench Area are in accordance with law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Karnataka  Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Represented by Managing Director (Admin. And HR) Vs. Sri C.Nagaraju and another in Civil Appeal No.7279/2019 decided on 16.09.2019 has held as under :-

"13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, we are of the view that interference with the order of dismissal by the High Court was unwarranted. It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court."

The Supreme Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 385 has held as under :

"16.The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue."

The Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685 has held as under :

"25.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result into the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further they are not in the same hierarchy."

The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and another Vs. R. Periyasamy reported in (2015) 3 SCC 101 has held as under :

"11. It is interesting to note that the learned Single Judge went to the extent of observing that the concept of preponderance of probabilities is alien to domestic enquiries. On the contrary, it is well known that the standard of proof that must be employed in domestic enquiries is in fact that of the preponderance of probabilities. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618 , this Court held that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and thus, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This view was upheld by this Court in SBI v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212. More recently, in SBI v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740, this Court observed that a disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges levelled against a bank officer on the preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt."

The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 740 has held as under :

"23.The inquiring authority has examined each and every charge levelled against the charged officer and the documents produced by the presenting officer and came to the conclusion that most of the charges were proved. In a departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618 and R.S.Saini v. State of Punjab (1999) 8 SCC 90. The documents produced by the Bank, which were not controverted by the charged officer support all the allegations and charges levelled against the charged officer. In a case, where the charged officer had failed to inspect the documents in respect of the allegations raised by the Bank and not controverted, it is always open to the inquiring authority to accept the same."

The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685 has held as under :

"24.We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling the respondents' candidature, the Screening Committee has overreached the judgments of the criminal court. We are aware that the question of co-relation between a criminal case and a departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but support can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical, namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. In R.P.Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, this Court has taken a view that departmental proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable."

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K.Solanki Vs. Central Bank of India [Writ Appeal No.780/2016] decided on 07.02.2018 has held as under :

"33. In the light of the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court, it is clear that the judicial review of departmental inquiry is based on different principles and acquittal of 23 petitioners from the criminal Court will not result into exoneration of the petitioners. In the light of aforesaid analysis, in my view, there is no flaw in the decision making process. The department has led credible evidence to show that the petitioners are guilty. The findings of Inquiry Officer are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. The orders of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authorities are in accordance with law. In view of misconduct on the part of petitioners, it cannot be said that punishment is disproportionate and shocking warranting any interference."

Thus, it is clear that merely because a delinquent officer has been acquitted in a criminal case would not ipso facto exonerate the petitioner in the departmental enquiry.

In the present case, the services of the petitioner were terminated which was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute and the dispute was also dismissed by the CGIT by its order dated 19.06.2015 which remained unchallenged and the said order has attained finality. Merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case would not mean that his termination automatically stands quashed. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of law which makes the judgment passed by the criminal court binding on the departmental proceedings.

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality was committed by the CGIT, Jabalpur while deciding the dispute by its order dated 19.06.2015 and similarly no illegality has been committed by the General Manager WCL, Pench Area by rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner by its order dated 03.12.2019.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.