Jharkhand High Court
Ramjee Singh vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5546 of 2015
Ramjee Singh .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Saraidhela, Dhanbad.
2. General manager, Area-V, Sijuwa, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limite,
Sijuwa, Katras, Dhanbad.
3. Agent Project Officer, Tetulmari Colliery, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal
Limited, Tetulmari, Katras, Dhanbad.
4. Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Region-II, Dhanbad.
.... .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Advocate
Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
11/07.05.2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the order of dismissal
dated 16.12.2005 bearing Ref. No. TC/F-90/0/Dismissal/2990/05, by which
the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and the amount of
gratuity has also been forfeited.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
on 27.08.1973 as a Fitter Helper and after serving for long period to the
satisfaction of the authorities, one fine morning, a chargesheet was issued
on 09.08.2005 bearing Charge Sheet No. TC/F-90/1982/2005 and a
departmental proceeding was initiated. On the same charges, a criminal
proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and in the criminal
proceedings, the petitioner was convicted by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 616 of 2001, on 06.02.2012.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of
conviction and the appellate authority, vide order dated 28.11.2014 passed
in Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2012 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed order
of acquittal. Since the petitioner was dismissed in the departmental
proceeding on 16.12.2005, after acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner
Shashank
preferred a departmental appeal on 25.08.2015, which is still pending and
no order has been passed.
4. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, strenuously urges that when the petitioner has been acquitted by
the appellate authority in the criminal proceedings and the charges in the
criminal proceeding as well as departmental proceeding were same and
similar, it was binding on the disciplinary authority to set aside the order of
dismissal, since petitioner has already been acquitted, however, no order
has been passed till date. It has been further argued that during pendency of
the writ petition, the respondent-C.M.P.F. Authorities have been kind
enough to release the Provident Fund amount on 10.11.2022 and pensionary
benefits were also extended to the petitioner on 14.01.2022. Learned
counsel fairly submits that the petitioner is getting current pension. Learned
counsel further argues that since the amount of gratuity has been forfeited, a
direction be given to the respondent-Management of B.C.C.L. to release the
same.
5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-B.C.C.L., vociferously argues that since the petitioner was
convicted and order was passed for forfeiting the amount of gratuity in case
of conviction, rightly the amount has been forfeited. Learned counsel
further submits that, however, after acquittal from the criminal case, since
the petitioner has preferred a representation, the same will be considered, in
accordance with law, and if petitioner is found entitled for the amount, an
order to that effect shall be passed.
6. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the
respondent-C.M.P.F., submits that on our part, no amount is due since we
have already released the entire amount for which the petitioner is entitled
for.
7. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for
the parties across the bar, this Court is of the view that as per the statutory
provisions, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal against the
order of dismissal, but the same was not done. Petitioner has preferred a
representation dated 25.08.2015 before the General Manager, Area-V,
Shashank
Sijuwa (Respondent No. 2), which is still pending. In view of the above, for
the ends of justice to meet, this Court directs the petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the General Manager, Area-V, Sijuwa (Respondent
No. 2)/Competent Authority, raising all the contentions, particularly
bringing to the knowledge of the authorities that he has already been
acquitted from the criminal case which was lodged on identical charges and
thereafter, he has also received the amount of pension as well as C.M.P.F..
On receipt of a fresh representation from the petitioner, the respondent-
authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned
order, in accordance with law and in view of the celebrated judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, and in the case of
G.M. Tank versus State of Gujrat, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446. Let it be
made clear that if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for the amount of
gratuity, the same shall be released. Even if any adverse order is passed, the
same shall also be communicated to the petitioner with cogent reasons as to
why petitioner is not entitled for the aforesaid amount. Let the entire
exercise be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
Shashank
