Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 776 (JHR)

Central Coalfields Limited v. Chaman Kumar

2015-07-07

S.CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : S. CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Aggrieved by award dated 26.07.2013 whereunder, termination of the respondent from service of CCL has been held illegal and not justified, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent-workman was employed as permanent cook, category-III at Jarangdih Colliery. In the incident dated 30.09.1999 a charge-memo was issued to respondent on 26.11.1999 alleging knowledge of the respondent-workman regarding occurrence of theft and the place where the stolen materials were concealed. A separate charge-memo dated 13.12.1999 was also issued to the respondent-workman for not reporting at the company's headquarters, in terms of the Certified Standing Order. An enquiry was conducted in the matter and a copy of enquiry report was furnished to the respondent-workman along with second show-cause notice dated 20.10.2000. After considering the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the respondent-workman the disciplinary authority vide, order dated 16.04.2001 inflicted punishment of "termination from the services of CCL". The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by award dated 26.07.2013, the present writ petition has been filed by Central Coalfields Limited. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper, the Industrial Tribunal cannot go beyond the findings recorded in the enquiry. It is submitted that, sufficient evidence was produced during the enquiry to prove the charges levelled against the respondent-workman and thus, without recording a finding that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse, no interference with the award of punishment is permissible. In so far as, charge-memo dated 13.12.1999 against the respondent-workman is concerned, the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charges have been found proved still, the Industrial Tribunal has interfered with the order of punishment awarded to the respondent-workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. H. Nagaraj, (1998) 9 SCC 671 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; 2. "We fail to see how the Tribunal, when it upheld the enquiry could have interfered with the quantum of punishment in this fashion. As far back as in 1989, this Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. H. Nagaraj, (1998) 9 SCC 671 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; 2. "We fail to see how the Tribunal, when it upheld the enquiry could have interfered with the quantum of punishment in this fashion. As far back as in 1989, this Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Parma Nanda, AIR 1989 SC 1185 held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters and punishment cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse." "It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority." 3. "The same view has been reiterated in a more recent decision of this Court in Union of India and another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs., AIR 1997 SC 3387 . This Court has held that the principle of proportionality can be invoked regarding punishment only in a case where the punishment was totally irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. Such is not in the present case. Hence, the order of the Tribunal which is impugned before us is set aside and the order of the appellate authority is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed." 4. I have carefully considered the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 5. In so far as the, registration of a criminal case in the incident which occurred on 30.09.1999 is concerned, there is no dispute that the respondent-workman has not been made an accused in the said criminal case. The investigation in the said criminal case ended in submission of Final Form. The charge-memo dated 26.11.1999 records "it was reported to the Management that you were in full knowledge regarding occurrence of theft and whereabout of the stolen materials". The investigation in the said criminal case ended in submission of Final Form. The charge-memo dated 26.11.1999 records "it was reported to the Management that you were in full knowledge regarding occurrence of theft and whereabout of the stolen materials". It appears from the record of the case that one Paras Singh was the person who first reported the theft however, he is not an eye witness. One M.D. Pandey has been examined as Management witness however, he has also not stated that he found the respondent-workman involved in commission of theft. Thus, he is also not an eye witness. The respondent-workman has raised a plea that the security personnels are posted in every store of Central Coalfields Ltd. however, none has implicated him in the theft case. The respondent-workman has also raised a plea that the Management did not produce any of the security personnel as witness during the enquiry. The enquiry officer, though has found charges under charge-memo dated 13.12.1999 proved, in so far as the involvement of the respondent-workman in commission of theft and concealment of the stolen materials are concerned, the enquiry officer has recorded as under: "Thus I had a belief that Sri Chaman Kumar may be indirectly involved with this case and later stage a careful watch on Sri Chaman Kumar and others as transpired from and figured out with the statement of Sri Chaman Kumar." 6. There cannot be a dispute with the proposition that test in the departmental proceeding is preponderance of probability however, a mere possibility cannot be sufficient to hold the charge against a delinquent employee, proved. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer only indicates that he was nurturing a doubt that the respondent-workman is indirectly involved in the theft case. The enquiry officer, it appears, taking note of certain inconsistencies in the statement of the respondent-workman, inferred that the respondent-workman tried to mislead the enquiry. In reply to second show-cause notice issued vide, order dated 20.10.2000, the respondent-workman has taken a specific defence that he was not implicated in the First Information Report. In Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477 , Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus, 7. "...There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. In Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477 , Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus, 7. "...There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised". 7. The disciplinary authority has simply recorded that after careful consideration of the enquiry report and the connected papers he has decided to inflict punishment of termination of service. As noticed above except the charge for not reporting to the company's headquarter, the enquiry officer has not recorded a finding that the charge contained in memo dated 13.12.1999 has been found proved. As noticed above except the charge for not reporting to the company's headquarter, the enquiry officer has not recorded a finding that the charge contained in memo dated 13.12.1999 has been found proved. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without recording a finding that the conclusion of enquiry officer is perverse, the Industrial Tribunal could not have interfered with the penalty of termination from service, is not tenable. In view of the fact that the enquiry report does not disclose a specific finding that charges have been proved, the Industrial Tribunal has rightly interfered with award dated 26.07.2013. The Industrial Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the respondent-workman was not made accused in the criminal case in which a Final Form was finally submitted. Considering the gravity of the charge which has been found proved against the respondent-workman, the Industrial Tribunal has noted that the penalty of termination from service was not warranted. In the present case charge-memo was issued to the workman on 13.12.1999 and he was terminated from service vide order dated 16.04.2001. The Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the workman however, without back wages. In view of the facts brought on record, remanding the matter to the Industrial Tribunal would be a futile exercise only. Though the Industrial Tribunal has not written an elaborate award, the conclusion reached at by the Industrial Tribunal, is correct and therefore, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.