Central Coalfields Limited vs Shiblal Manjhi

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The Appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 05.12.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5565 of 2003 by which the order dated 31.07.2003 passed by the Appellants dismissing the writ Petitioner-Respondent from service, was set aside.

We need not to narrate the facts in detail in view of the fact that admittedly the writ Petitioner-Respondent was arrested on the charge of murder of his wife on 19.06.1994 and he was acquitted by the court of Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 10.07.1997 and the writ Petitioner-Respondent submitted that he went to the employer to report for duty but he was not allowed to join the duty and he was supplied the termination order dated 30.03.1995. Then the writ Petitioner-Respondent challenged the order dated 30.03.1995 by filing W.P.(S) No. 2246 of 2003 and that writ petition was disposed of with giving permission to the writ Petitioner-Respondent to submit representation and after considering the representation of the writ Petitioner-Respondent, he was dismissed from service again vide order dated 31.07.2003.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the affidavit filed by the Appellants and facts of the case, reached to the conclusion that the stand taken by the Appellants was absolutely false and contention of the Appellants that it was a fair enquiry before passing the order of dismissal of the Petitioner from service, is baseless. It is not in dispute that the writ Petitioner-Respondent was arrested from the quarter given by the employer-Appellants itself and their contention is that they were not knowing that the writ Petitioner-Respondent was arrested in connection with a criminal case. This gesture suggests that no effort was made to serve the chargesheet upon the writ Petitioner-Respondent and further, in view of the conduct of the Appellants, the learned Single Judge rightly held that there was no enquiry in the eye of law and the order of dismissal was rightly set aside.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants faced with the situation submitted that writ Petitioner-Respondent should not have been allowed 100% back wages.

We are of the considered opinion that the writ Petitioner-Respondent, since approached this Court after some delay and, therefore, he cannot be allowed 100% back wages and the equity will serve the purpose if the Petitioner is awarded 50% back wages in place of 100% back wages with the benefit of continuity of service for all other purposes. The Appellants are therefore, directed to reinstate the writ Petitioner-Respondent forthwith. The writ Petitioner-Respondent is directed to report to the Appellants immediately.

The L.P.A. is allowed partly to the extent referred above.