Jharkhand High Court
Ram Ashray Kurmi vs Employees In Relation To The Management ... on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(L) No. 1798 of 2009
Ram Ashray Kurmi, the concerned workman, son of Shri Kolai
Kurmi, resident of Gopalichak, No. 10, P.O. and P.S. Jharia, Distt.
Dhanbad. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Employees in relation to the Management of Bastacolla Colliery of
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., having its Head office at Koyla
Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhelia, Distt. Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Subham Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
---
11/25.10.2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was dismissed from service after conducting domestic enquiry. The
domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the petitioner has
no grievance so far as the domestic enquiry is concerned.
3. He has submitted that the learned tribunal has recorded that no
such plea was raised that the petitioner has been acquitted in the
criminal case on the ground that the witnesses had turned hostile. The
learned counsel submits that the order of acquittal was passed only on
13.11.2009 and the award is dated 22.07.2008. The learned counsel
submits that the case of the petitioner before the learned tribunal was
that the witnesses who had deposed in the criminal case had turned
hostile. It was never the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
acquitted at that point of time. However, the petitioner has been
acquitted later on 13.11.2009. He has referred to the discussions made
by the learned tribunal in this regard in paragraph 15 to 17 of the
impugned award.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that a Recovery Suit
was also filed by the respondent being Recovery Suit No. 02 of 1999
in which a compensation and damages was to be determined which
was to be payable by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 9,12,000/-
relating to the loss caused to the respondent due to the act of the
petitioner on 29.12.1998. The learned counsel submits that though the
final judgment in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1999 is not in his possession nor
same has been brought on record but to the best of his information the
civil suit has also been dismissed. He also does not have the date of
the dismissal of the suit. The learned counsel submits that once the
civil suit have been dismissed it goes to show that the management did
not suffer from any monetary loss.
5. In furtherance to the argument, the learned counsel has
submitted that once disciplinary proceeding is held to be fair and
proper, It was incumbent upon the learned tribunal to consider the
proportionality of the punishment. He submits that this aspect of the
matter has not been considered by the learned tribunal.
6. His submission is that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have
serious bearing and therefore, the matter be remitted back to the
concerned court so that the acquittal of the petitioner, dismissal of the
suit and the quantum of punishment be taken into consideration. The
learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-
a. Mavji C Lakum versus Central Bank of India (2008) 12 SCC 726
b. S. Bhaskar Reddy & Anr. Vs. Superintendent of Police & Anr.
(2015) 2 SCC 365.
c. Reserve bank of India Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchat (1994) 1 SCC
541 & Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (2015) 2
SCC 377 (Paragraphs 15 to 17)
d. Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd (2006)
4 SCC 713.
e. (2019) 9 SCC 496
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
while opposing the prayer submits that so far as the point of
proportionality is concerned, he has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563 [ State
of Karnataka and another versus Umesh] , Paragraph 16 to submit
that acquittal of the accused in a criminal case does not debar the
employer form proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction.
He has also submitted that in the aforesaid judgment the allegation
was only of abuse and inspite of such allegation the order of dismissal
was sustained.
8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the order of
dismissal in the present case was passed in disciplinary proceeding on
15.09.1999 the award was passed on 22.07.2008 and the judgment of
the acquittal was passed in the Criminal Case was passed on
13.11.2009 meaning thereby that on the date of his order of dismissal
in the disciplinary enquiry and also on the date of passing of the award
the petitioner was not acquitted in the criminal case. The learned
counsel has submitted that even the set of witnesses in criminal case
and the domestic enquiry were totally different.
9. He has further submitted that once the disciplinary enquiry was
held to be fair and proper the scope is very limited and primarily the
proportionality of punishment was to be taken in to consideration. The
allegation against the petitioner are very serious in the sense that the
petitioner had taken the unit of the respondent at ransom. He had
incited other workman and put the life of a few in jeopardy and had
caused damages to the establishment of the respondent.
Approximately, 197 persons were trapped inside the mine though for a
short period.
10. In response the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that there was no allegation of abuse against the petitioner and so far
as substantial loss to the respondent company is concerned, the civil
suit seeking damages and loss has been dismissed and therefore, such
arguments are of the respondents are not sustainable.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal
vs. The State of Rajasthan in Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023.
12. Argument is concluded.
13. Post this case on 10th December, 2024 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
