Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 246 (JHR)

Ranjit Kumar Dey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

2001-04-09

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The only question involved in this writ application is as to whether it is a fit case where a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner should be stayed till disposal of the criminal proceeding initiated against him. 2. The petitioner is a permanent employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and he has been working on the post of Sr. Overman at Basantimata Colliery under Charch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL. The petitioners case is that he is the Secretary of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union and represents the genuine cause of the workmen. On 11.12.1998 a first information was lodged by the respondent No. 4 the agent of Basantimata Colliery against Mongol Gorain and others including the petitioner for the offence committed under Sections 147, 149, 323, 352, 337, 325 and 379, IPC being Nirsa P.S. Case No. 274/98 alleging, inter alia, that on 11.12.1998 the workers union called strike and the accused-persons alongwith villagers stopped the employees from going to perform their duty. Mangal Gorain and others snatched away cap lamp of workmen, Raghunath Rai and assaulted him. When CISF personnel reached there the accused-persons fled away. The supporters of Band completely paralysed the work. On 12th December, 1998 the respondent No. 4 issued charge-sheet against the petitioner alleging that on 11.12.1998 he came to the colliery and did not mark his attendance. The petitioner alongwith other strikers obstructed the willing worker to attend their duty on the way to colliery. On 18.1.1999 an enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer. On receipt of the information the petitioner submitted an application to postponed the enquiry proceeding till finalisation of the criminal case, since his disclosure of defence in domestic enquiry will highly prejudice him. It is stated that the enquiry officer instead of stopping the enquiry proceeding repeatedly fixed date for holding enquiry and is not staying the proceeding till the disposal of the criminal case. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that the object in the criminal proceeding and the disciplinary proceeding is altogether distinct and different. The question involved in the disciplinary proceeding is to find out whether the workman is guilty of misconduct, whereas in criminal proceeding the petitioner has been prosecuted for committing offence under the penal code. 4. The question involved in the disciplinary proceeding is to find out whether the workman is guilty of misconduct, whereas in criminal proceeding the petitioner has been prosecuted for committing offence under the penal code. 4. I have heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent-BCCL. 5. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel, submitted that the disciplinary proceeding as also the criminal case arose out of the same set of fact and, therefore, the domestic enquiry is liable to be stayed during the pendency of the criminal case. In support of his contention he has relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Sunderrajan v. UTI, (1993) 1 LLJ (SC) 168 and Kusheshwar Dubey v. BCCL, (1998) 4 SCC 319. 6. The law on the point of simultaneous continuance of departmental enquiry and criminal proceeding has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679 . Their Lordships after considering all the earlier decisions have come to the following conclusion :-- "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 bee given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to bee 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, 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 an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest." 7. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, now I shall examine whether; the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of fact and the charge in the criminal case against the petitioner is of a grave nature, which involves complicated question of law and fact. 8. From perusal of Annexure 1, copy of First Information Report, it appears that it was lodged with the police station on 11.12.1998 alleging, inter alia, that on 11.12.1998 the workers union called strike. The petitioner, Ranjit Dey, Mangal Gorain Narayan Bhandari, Srimanta Gorai, Aditya Gorai and others villagers, supporting the Band, stopped employees from going to perform their duty. Mangal Gorai and others snatched away cap lamp of workman Raghunath Rai and assaulted him. On the second day i.e. on 12.12.1998 a charge memo was served on the petitioner. A copy of the charge memo has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet is reproduced hereinbelow :-- "Sub : Charge-sheet--On 11.12.1998 you came to the Colliery at about 8.00 a.m. and did not work your attendance. You along with other strike supporters obstructed the willing workers to attend their duties on their way to Colliery Incline, When the willing workers, wanted to attend their duties, you instigated the other strike supporters namely Sri Mangal Gorai. Sri Shyama Pado Gorai and other employees and out siders who in turn assaulted the willing worker including Sri Madan Nonia, Mining Sardar, Sri S.K. Sinha, Overman, Sri Hadish Hia, Trammer, Sri Raghunath Roy, S.D.L. Operator, Sri Sriram Mahato, Cableman, Sri Bodilal Hansda, S.D.L. Operator. Sri P.K. Ukil, Sri Overman & other near Kalimandir Depot. Sri Shyama Pado Gorai and other employees and out siders who in turn assaulted the willing worker including Sri Madan Nonia, Mining Sardar, Sri S.K. Sinha, Overman, Sri Hadish Hia, Trammer, Sri Raghunath Roy, S.D.L. Operator, Sri Sriram Mahato, Cableman, Sri Bodilal Hansda, S.D.L. Operator. Sri P.K. Ukil, Sri Overman & other near Kalimandir Depot. As a result of this the workers got panic strike and fled away. The management however tried to restore the work. The Company has to face a production loss to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- approximately. This is a very serious matter and amounts to misconduct and hence you are charged as per the following provisions of Certified Standing Orders of the Company which is applicable to you and reads as under :........." 9. From bare reading of the allegations made in the FIR and the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet, it is clear that the criminal case instituted on the basis of FIR and the departmental proceeding initiated on the basis of charge-sheet are based on identical and similar set of fact. 10. It is admitted by the respondents in para 5 of the counter affidavit that the FIR lodged against the petitioner clearly speaks that the petitioner alongwith others were instrumental in giving the strike called on 11.12.1998 and in pursuance thereof they were found intimidating and threatening the willing workers from going to their work place and even badty assaulted them by lathis blows and brick-batting. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is an office bearer of registered trade union and the question that may falls for consideration in the criminal case is that whether the name of the petitioner was inserted in the FIR with some ulterior motive by the respondent No. 5 due to trade union rivalry. 11. In my opinion, therefore, it is a fit case where the respondents should stay their hands in the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case. However, if the criminal case does not proceed and in any event if the criminal case is not concluded within a period of two years, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner can be resumed and proceeded with. 12. This writ application is, therefore, allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. 13. Application allowed.