Barahan Mian vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 13th February, 1999, Annexure-4 issued by the Disciplinary Authority under the Respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on the findings of guilt arrived at in the departmental proceeding on the charges that he was trying to steal copper wire to the tune of Rs. 2500/- while he was working as a Fitter at Angarpathra Colliery, Katras under Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. The F.I.R. was also registered on 4th November, 1998 with same allegation. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal in CWJC No. 632 of 1999(R), but the same was withdrawn on account of the pendency of the criminal case.

On being acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment dated 21st January, 2004, he preferred another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6581 of 2004 to challenge the dismissal order. Learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th December, 2004, Annexure-6 was pleased to allow the petitioner to file a representation before the authority, who was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within stipulated period. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 16th March, 2005 passed by respondent No. 3, the Chief General Manager, Katras Area, Dhanbad, Annexure-7, which is also impugned herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner, who faced the departmental proceeding on same charges, have been acquitted by the Trial Court concerned, still the respondents have chosen not to reinstate him in service. It is submitted that the charges were only of attempt to steal and the punishment imposed is wholly disproportionate to misconduct alleged to have been established against the petitioner, who was only a Fitter in the Respondent-B.C.C.L. and had unblemished service record prior to that, as such he should not have been imposed with serious punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would have reached the age of superannuation by 2003 itself. The inquiry report is also not on record.

Learned counsel for the Respondent-B.C.C.L. has contested the case and submitted that the order of acquittal is not honourable acquittal, rather is based upon benefit of doubt, which would not entitle him for reinstatement.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. It appears that the petitioner though initially challenged the order of dismissal in CWJC No. 632 of 1999, but withdrew the same on account of pendency of the criminal case. After his acquittal in the criminal case vide judgment dated 21st January, 2004, he made a case for setting aside his order of dismissal by preferring a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6581 of 2004. The respondent No. 3 in the impugned order at Annexure-7 has, in fact, indicated that though the petitioner did not submit any representation till the date of passing of the order, still in view of the order of Hon''ble Court communicated to them and after considering the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, in G.R. Case No. 3887 of 1988, T.R. No. 1594/2004, the matter was reconsidered. It further appears from perusal of the judgment of acquittal that several witnesses turned hostile such as witnesses No. 4, 7 and 8. The prosecution had neither examined the Investigating Officer of the case nor seizure-list of the case. Property was produced for the Court to inspect. The prosecution did not have any explanation for the same. After considering the materials produced by the prosecution, the learned trial court came to a conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges under Section 409 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the said accused person was entitled to the benefits of doubt. It therefore appears that the acquittal of the petitioner was not honourable, rather on the benefit of doubt. The respondent No. 3 in the reasoned order has observed that there is no bar in continuity with the departmental proceeding, notwithstanding acquittal in a criminal case in view of law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court as the standard of proof in both the proceedings are quite different. He has also held that the inquiry was conducted after full opportunity to the petitioner and the charges leveled against him were found to be fully established by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, he was dismissed from service on proof of charges.

Apparently, the petitioner did not assail the order of dismissal on any other grounds of law, except that he had been acquitted in the criminal case in 2004. However, the acquittal was based upon the benefit of doubt granted to the accused petitioner. Therefore, the findings of the respondent No. 3, cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity or is perverse. If the charges of stealing or attempt to steal have been established in the departmental proceeding, then the punishment also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct. Therefore, no grounds for interference has been made out by the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.