Chattisgarh High Court
Secretary C.G.Swatantra Mazd vs The C.M.D. Secl And Anr on 3 April, 2025
-1-
Digitally
REKHA signed by
SINGH REKHA
SINGH
2025:CGHC:15792
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 4864 of 2009
1 - The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Swatantra Mazdoor Union, Baradwar, P.O.
Baradwar, District Bilaspur (now District Raigarh) (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The C.M.D., SECL, HQ Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2) The Dy. General Manager, SECL, Rajgamar Colliery, P.O. Rajgamar Colliery,
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.04.2025
1) Heard.
2) The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (MP) dated 24.09.1999
whereby the reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour
dated 18.06.1992 was decided against the workman in favour of the
management, whereby the termination of services of the petitioner has been
affirmed.
3) The facts of the present case are that the workman/petitioner was working as
-2-
a loader in the Rajgamar Colliery SECL. It was alleged that on 12.03.1991,
the petitioner and other loaders assaulted Dy. Personnel Manager using iron
rod, lathi and Belcha. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner and other
workmen and it was registered for the commission of offence punishable
under Sections 148, 332/149 & 427/149 of IPC. The management issued an
article of charge on 16.03.1991 with the allegations that the petitioner and
other workmen assaulted Shri S.P. Singh, Dy. Personnel Manager on
12.03.1991 using an iron rod, Lathi and Belcha with the intention to kill him;
he was saved by Shri P.N. Singh, Sr. Overman, S.K. Purty, Senior. S.I.
Karanj Gaunkar, S.G. and Shri Rajaram and at the same time, the petitioner
and other workers ransacked causing damage to the property of the
company. It is further alleged that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to
serious misconduct under the Certified Standing Order Clause Nos. 17(1)(1),
(q), (r) and (t) and the same read as follows:-
“Clause 17(1)(1) Causing willful damage to work in
progress or to property of the employer.
Clause 17(1) (q) Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952, or
any other act or any rules, regulations or bye-laws
thereunder, or of any Standing Orders,Clause 17(1)(r)- Threatening, abusing or assaulting any
Superior or Co-worker.
Clause 17(1) (t)- Preaching of or inciting to violence.”
4) The petitioner filed a reply to the article of charge. A departmental inquiry
was ordered by the management. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer
were appointed. The petitioner participated in the departmental inquiry. He
was assisted by the workmen to defend. The documents were supplied to
-3-
the petitioner. The management examined its witnesses. The petitioner was
permitted to cross-examine those witnesses. The Inquiry Officer found the
petitioner guilty and submitted its report before the disciplinary authority. The
disciplinary authority terminated the services of the petitioner vide order
dated 25.06.1991. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner and it was also
dismissed. The learned Court below affirmed the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority and appellate authority.
5) Mr. Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue
that the petitioner was falsely implicated and he did not commit any act of
violence. He would further argue that a false criminal case was registered
and the petitioner as well as other accused persons have already been
acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Korba in Criminal
Case No.144/02 vide judgment dated 13.03.2006. He would contend that the
management ought to have considered the order of acquittal passed in
favour of the petitioner. He would further contend that the petitioner was not
afforded the proper opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry.
He would also argue that the penalty inflicted is shocking and
disproportionate looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. He prays for the
quashment of the order dated 24.09.1999.
6) On the other hand, Mr. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Chandra. He
would submit that on 12.03.1991, the petitioner and other workmen
assaulted the Senior Personnel Manager namely S.P. Singh in the presence
of other officials of the departmental. He would further submit that the
-4-
incident was witnessed by many persons and they were examined as the
management witnesses. He would contend that in the departmental inquiry,
the witnesses categorically made a statement against the petitioner. He
would further contend that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to
cross-examine those witnesses. He would also contend that the article of
charge was issued; it was replied to by the petitioner; the documents were
supplied; the witnesses were examined; the witnesses were cross-examined
by the petitioner; an inquiry report was submitted and the petitioner was
found guilty; thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order of
termination against the petitioner. He would argue that the petitioner has not
challenged the inquiry report and the order passed by the disciplinary
authority on any legal grounds. He would further argue that the learned
Court below has considered the entire material and thereafter affirmed the
findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. He would lastly submit that the
instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
8) The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 25.06.1991.
An appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.
9) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order dated 18.06.1992
referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the management of Rajgamar Colliery
of SECL in terminating the services of Shri Ramani Loader, is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
10) The petitioner has assailed the order of termination of services passed by
-5-
the disciplinary authority and the award passed by the learned Tribunal
dated 24.09.1999 on the grounds that the orders passed by the respondent
authorities are arbitrary, irrational, unwarranted and illegal. Further ground
raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the acquittal order dated
13.03.2006 has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal.
The petitioner has raised another ground that the department acted with
malice and the principles of the Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution of
India have not been followed.
11) The petitioner has not raised grounds to the effect that he was not afforded
sufficient opportunity of hearing or documents were not supplied or the
procedure for inflicting the major penalty was not followed by the
management or disciplinary authority was not competent.
12) The record of the Court below would show that a complaint was made by
Shri S.P. Singh, Senior Personnel Manager against the petitioner and other
workmen with regard to the incident dated 12.03.1991. The article of charge
was issued on 16.03.1991. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were
appointed. The Management examined S.P. Singh, S.K. Purty, Karanj
Gaunkar and P. N. Singh and these witnesses were cross-examined by the
petitioner.
13) In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer found all the allegations proved
against the petitioner. The inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of termination of
services of the petitioner vide order dated 24.09.1991. The appellate
authority also affirmed the said order.
14) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nelson Motis vs. Union of
-6-
India & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 711, held that the disciplinary proceedings can
be legally continued even where the employee is acquitted in a criminal case
as the nature and proof required in a criminal case is different from those in
the departmental proceedings. Besides, the Court found that the act which
led to the initiation of departmental proceedings were not exactly the same
which were the subject matter of the criminal case. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed as under:-
“5. So far the first point is concerned, namely whether the
disciplinary proceedings could have been continued in the face
of the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case, the plea
has no substance whatsoever and does not merit a detailed
consideration. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very
different from those of a departmental disciplinary proceeding
and an order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the
departmental proceedings. Besides, the Tribunal has pointed
out that the acts which led to the initiation of the departmental
disciplinary proceeding were not exactly the same which were
the subject matter of the criminal case.
15) In the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC
417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each of
them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no
legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and
then say that in certain situation, it may not be ‘desirable’,
‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary
enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charge.
The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a
matter to be determined having regard to the facts and
circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules
can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in
the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying
the disciplinary proceedings is that ‘the defence of the
employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.’ This
ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that
this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions
of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only
-7-
the charges must be grave but that the case must involve
complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, ‘advisability’,
‘desirability’ or ‘propriety’, as the case may be, has to be
“determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts
and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in D.C.M.
(AIR 1960 SC 806) and Tata Oil Mills (AIR 1965 SC 155) is also
not an invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the
scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the
disciplinary proceedings. One of the contending considerations
is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be – and should not be –
delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is
well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or
persons are involved. They get bogged down on one or the
other ground. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion.
That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions
from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly
delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with
the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary
proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests of
administration and good government demand that these
proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be
remembered that interests of administration demand that
undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of
misdemeanour is inquired into promptly. The disciplinary
proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to
keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of
bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in
a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not
guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the
earlist possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt
with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of
administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour
should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the
interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the guilty
and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various
factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we
found it necesasry to emphasise some of the important
considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary
proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal
proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and
should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for
and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping
in view of the various principles laid down in the decisions
referred to above.” This decision has gone two steps further to
the earlier decisions by providing :The ‘advisability’, ‘desirability’
or ‘propriety’ of staying the departmental proceedings “go into
the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying
the disciplinary proceedings” merely as one of the factors which
-8-
cannot be considered in isolation of other circumstances of the
case. But the charges in the criminal case must, in any case,
be of a grave and serious nature involving complicated
questions of fact and law. (2) One of the contending
considerations would be that the disciplinary enquiry cannot —
and should not be — delayed unduly. If the criminal case is
unduly delayed, that may itself be a good ground for going
ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even though the disciplinary
proceedings were held over at an earlier stage. It would not be
in the interests of administration that persons accused of
serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely
awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. In another case,
namely, Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699 = AIR
1997 SC 2232, again it was held that there is no bar to proceed
simultaneously with the departmental inquiry and trial of a
criminal case unless the charge in the criminal case is of a
grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law.
22.The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions
of this Court referred to above are :
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal
case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their
being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are
based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the
criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave
nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it
would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the
conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave
and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved
in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature
of the case launched against the employee on the basis of
evidence and material collected against him during
investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be
considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings
but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental
proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being
unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they
were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case,
can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at
-9-an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his
honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty,
administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings,
namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case
were the same without there being any iota of difference, the
distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach
and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant
case.”
16) With regard to the contention made by Mr. Chandra that the petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case, it is a well-settled principle of law that the fact
of acquittal in a criminal case cannot be considered with the departmental
inquiry as parameters to prove the guilt in a criminal case and the
departmental inquiry are entirely different. In a criminal case, the prosecution
has to prove the guilt of an accused beyond the reasonable doubt whereas
in the departmental inquiry, on the principle of preponderance of
probabilities.
17) Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority,
the appellate authority and the learned Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court,
no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is
hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
[ad_1]
Source link