Jharkhand High Court
Bhimal Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 March, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No.7251 of 2019
-----
Bhimal Ram, son of late Shiolath Ram, aged about 54 years, resident
of village Bishunpura, PO and PS Bansdih Road, District Ballia, Uttar
Pradesh ... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
Koyla Bhavan, PO Koyla Nagar, PS Saraidhella, District Dhanbad,
Jharkhand
3.The Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhavan,
PO Koyla Nagar, PS Saraidhella, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
4.The Director (Finance), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhavan, PO
Koyla Nagar, PS Saraidhella, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
5.General Manager (HRD), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Kalyan Bhavan,
PO ISM, PS Saraidhella, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
6. General Manager (Finance), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Kalyan
Bhavan, PO ISM, PS Saraidhella, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... Respondents.
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shishir Suman, AC to AAG-IV
For the BCCL : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
.........
20 /20.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short, BCCL) and learned counsel for
the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that termination of
the petitioner is not only bad but the doctrine of parity has also not
been followed. He submits that there were two other co-employees
charged along with the petitioner in a criminal case but they were not
dismissed from service, even after their conviction in the joint trial
along with the petitioner but the petitioner has been dismissed. He
submits that in the earlier departmental proceeding also this petitioner
along with those two persons were punished and the quantum of
punishment was equal so far as all these three employees are
concerned but in the second proceeding only the petitioner has been
dismissed from service and no dismissal order was passed in relation
to other two employees which is discrimination, so far as this
petitioner is concerned.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BCCL submits that
the charges in both the proceedings are different. So far as dismissal
of this petitioner is concerned which relates to the second
departmental proceeding, the petitioner was proceeded against in the
departmental proceeding as the petitioner was in service, but the
other two delinquent whom the petitioner is referring to, had already
superannuated, thus no order of punishment could have been passed
against them as there did not exist any relationship of employer and
employee between those employees and the company. He submits
that though the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case, but
he has been dismissed after a proper departmental proceeding. So far
as the other two workmen are concerned, before their conviction they
had already superannuated.
4. After hearing the parties and after going through the
documents, I find that the facts are undisputed. This petitioner along
with two employees namely, Rajendra Prasad and Ram Naresh Singh
were in the Accounts Department of BCCL. It is the allegation that
these three persons have manipulated official records related to
salary and thus cheated BCCL, to the tune of Rs.11,54,746/-. A
departmental proceeding was initiated against them and a criminal
case was also instituted. After a proper departmental inquiry, giving
full opportunity to all the three persons, major punishment was
imposed upon them by order dated 02.07.2013. The punishment was
of reduction of pay to the lower grade w.e.f. 01.08.2013 and also an
order to recover an amount of Rs.5,47,180.05 from salary of this
petitioner and other two employees respectively. The petitioner and
those two employees namely, Rajendra Prasad and Ram Naresh
Singh faced the punishment.
5. The criminal case which was registered against all these three
persons under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 continued and all these persons were put on
trial. During pendency of the criminal case, Rajendra Prasad and Ram
Naresh Singh superannuated sometime on 30.01.2017 and
31.08.2017. All these three persons later on were convicted by the
learned Special Court of CBI, Dhanbad vide order dated 29.01.2018.
Once the petitioner and others were convicted, since the petitioner
only was in service, fresh departmental chargesheet was filed against
the petitioner on 03.04.2018. The charge in the instant case is that the
petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case. It is admitted that
conviction is a misconduct as per the disciplinary rules of the
company. Since the petitioner was convicted he was proceeded
against departmentally and after proper inquiry he was dismissed from
service on 22.10.2018. This order of dismissal is under challenge by
the petitioner on the ground of parity.
6. In support of his case, the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Rajendra
Yadav vs. State of M.P and Others" reported in 2013 (3) SCC 73.
In my view the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in this case.
The theory of parity is applied when all the situations are same in
respect of the person claiming parity and the others i.e with whom
parity is claimed. In this case though in the criminal proceeding the
conviction is same but the situation cannot be said to be same so far
as the petitioner and the other two employees. The petitioner is still in
service thus there exists an employer-employee relationship between
the petitioner and the BCCL. So far as the other two employees are
concerned, they have already superannuated in January 2017 and
August 2017 i.e. much before the conviction in the criminal case.
Conviction in a criminal case is misconduct as per the certified
standing order of the company. In the service law, if their exists
employer-employee relationship then an employer can take
disciplinary action and punish the employee. If there exists no
relationship, the employer cannot inflict any punishment. To inflict a
punishment the relationship of employer-employee must exists. In this
case so far as Rajendra Prasad and Ram Naresh Singh is concerned
their relationship came to an end on their respective date of
superannuation which is much prior to their date of conviction, thus
the respondent-BCCL could not have taken any action against them
as any action departmentally against them after their superannuation
would have led to illegality. Since the petitioner was in the rolls of the
company, the respondents have taken a decision to proceed and
dismiss him.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sushil Kumar
Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank reported in
(2010) 8 SCC 573 has upheld dismissal on the ground of conviction.
8. In this case the petitioner already stands convicted and
conviction is a misconduct, so no illegality has been committed by
BCCL in dismissing the petitioner.
So far as earlier departmental proceeding is concerned, the
charge in the departmental proceeding was of misappropriation of
fund in connivance and loss caused to the company which is a
separate misconduct than that of conviction. So it cannot be a case
where on the same set of charge, two punishment has been inflicted
in a departmental proceeding.
9. I find no merit in this writ application, thus this writ application is
dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Tanuj/
AFR
