Judgment SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated April 10, 1991, passed by the learned single Judge in C. W. J. C. No.401 of 1985 (R), whereby and whereunder, the order dated january 31, 1995 and the award dated February 28, 1985, passed by the Industrial Tribunal were upheld and thereby the order of dismissal passed with effect from November 16, 1988 was affirmed. 2. The workman is represented by appellant, who was working in the management of Jogidih Colliery of Bharat coking Coal Ltd. (B. C. C. L. for short), as explosive Carrier at Jogidih Colliery. A charge sheet was initiated against him on december 13, 1977, alleging misconduct and it was alleged that he had fraudulently taken presigned depot transfer vouchers and withdrawn detonators from the Magazine Clerk of South govindpur Colliery, but did not deposit the same at Magazine of Jogidih Colliery, causing loss to the Management of Rs.3500/- for electric detonators and Rs.3000/- for ordinary detonators. It was observed that the highly explosive substance aforesaid might have been stolen away through a special element for monetary gain by the workman. 3. The workman submitted show cause reply and denied the allegations. The management appointed one Shri A. K. Rao, personnel Officer, Govindpur Area to conduct domestic enquiry. Evidences were led by parties, both oral and documentary, whereinafter the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved. On the basis of such enquiry report, the workman was dismissed from service with effect from November 16, 1978. 4. For similar allegations, F. I. R. No.13 was lodged in Bhagwara Police Station on december 13, 1977. In the criminal case, the workman was tried and convicted. Against the order of conviction, the workman moved in criminal Appeal No.97/80, which was allowed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions judge, Dhanbad, vide his judgment dated september 27, 1983. The appellate Court in the said criminal appeal held that the prosecution was not able to bring home the charges under section 379 and 420 I. P. C. against the accused and thereby held the charges as not justified. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned lower Court against the workman was set aside. 5. The workman never chose to move before the competent authority/court of law of competent jurisdiction for about five years against the order of dismissal with effect from november 16, 1978. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned lower Court against the workman was set aside. 5. The workman never chose to move before the competent authority/court of law of competent jurisdiction for about five years against the order of dismissal with effect from november 16, 1978. It is only in the year 1983, when he was acquitted, moved through the appellant for withdrawal of the dismissal order in view of judgment passed in criminal appeal aforesaid. The appropriate Government thereafter referred the dispute to the Industrial tribunal for adjudication in respect of the following reference: "whether the action of the management of jogidih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. in dismissing Shri Mohan Sahu from service with effect from November 16, 1970 for misconduct, especially when the Additional sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Dhanbad held that charges of fraud and dishonesty had not been established and honourably acquitted him, is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 6. On the prayer of the management, the tribunal framed preliminary issues relating to fairness of domestic enquiry. Witnesses were examined, whereinafter, on hearing the parties, impugned order was passed by Tribunal on january 31, 1985 and held, inter alia, that neither the witnesses examined before the Enquiry officer, nor the Enquiry Officer was biased. The domestic enquiry could be held even during the pendency of a criminal case, there being no bar to proceed in such case. It was further taken into consideration that the workman fully participated in the departmental enquiry, without any objection, led evidence; examined; and cross-examined the witnesses and the domestic enquiry was conducted following the procedure in fair and proper manner. 7. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to consider the case on merit to find out the legality and propriety of the order of dismissal and on consideration of materials/evidences, placed before the Enquiry Officer, including the evidences led by the workman, held the charges established against the workman. The reference was, accordingly, answered and the award was passed against the workman on february 28, 1985. 8. The aforesaid order dated January 31, 1985 and the award dated February 28, 1985, passed in Reference Case No.58 of 1985/84, were challenged before this Court in C. W. J. C. No.401/85 (R ). The reference was, accordingly, answered and the award was passed against the workman on february 28, 1985. 8. The aforesaid order dated January 31, 1985 and the award dated February 28, 1985, passed in Reference Case No.58 of 1985/84, were challenged before this Court in C. W. J. C. No.401/85 (R ). The learned single Judge taking into consideration all the facts and submissions made on behalf of the workman, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated April 10, 1991, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 9. The sole stand taken on behalf of the appellant is that the enquiry is vitiated as the authority who framed the charge, is the disciplinary authority, who took part in the enquiry, whereinafter the order of dismissal was passed. Reliance was placed on decision of orissa High Court in the case of the management of Orissa Industries V/s. State of orissa and Others, reported in (1974-I-LLJ-54) (Ori-DB ). 10. Reliance was also placed on different decisions of Supreme Court reported in A. I. R.1959 S. C.308; A. I. R.1999 S. C.1416; (1966)S. C. C.364; and (1993) 4 S. C. C.10. 11. Apart from the aforesaid plea, no other plea was taken by the Counsel for the appellant in respect of the merit of the case and the finding of the Tribunal in respect of order of dismissal. 12. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the award has been passed in terms with the provisions of Sec.11-A of the I. D. Act. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal having given its own finding of facts, affirming the order of dismissal, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment in proportion to the gravity of the charges, learned single Judge rightly refused to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. From the pleadings made by the parties and facts aforesaid, it will be evident that the workman never raised any grievance for about five years relating to legality and propriety of the order of dismissal till the criminal appeal was allowed. He merely prayed for recall of the order of dismissal in view of the finding of Court in the criminal appeal and at that stage, no grievance was made relating to taking part of disciplinary authority in the domestic enquiry as one of the witnesses. He merely prayed for recall of the order of dismissal in view of the finding of Court in the criminal appeal and at that stage, no grievance was made relating to taking part of disciplinary authority in the domestic enquiry as one of the witnesses. Neither such objection was raised during the enquiry nor such question was raised before the tribunal. 14. The learned single Judge of this Court also discussed the aforesaid question and held that to material was placed on record to show that the report of the Enquiry Officer was biased or was at the behest of the disciplinary authority. In absence of any material showing that on account of the appearance of the disciplinary authority, who issued the charge-sheet earlier, prejudice caused to the workman, it cannot be said that the domestic enquiry was not fair or proper. 15. I find no reason to differ with such finding of the learned single Judge and as there being no other grievance made in respect of the enquiry proceeding or the finding of the enquiry Officer, on merit, in respect of the charge, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in question. 16. In the circumstances, there being no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed accordingly. No costs. M.Y.EQBAL, J. 17 I agree.