Orissa High Court
Pitambar Kansari vs Presiding Officer on 1 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.11 of 2017
Pitambar Kansari .... Petitioner
Mr. Ramanath Acharya, Adv.
-versus-
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, .... Opp. Parties
Sambalpur & Anr.
Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order No. 01.11.2021
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner at length.
3. The Petitioner has filed this RVWPET seeking review
of the order/ judgment dated 21.09.2016 passed by this Court in
O.J.C. No.12306 of 2001.
4. The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner has been
dismissed by this Court refusing to interfere with the finding
given in the award by the Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D.
Case No.61 of 1996.
// 2 //
5. The grounds for review as enunciated in the review
petition are:
(i) The domestic enquiry conducted by the management
of Rourkela Steel Plant was held to be fair and proper as held
by the learned Labour Court, Sambalpur was wrong. Hence,
this Court should have appreciated this point in proper
prospective.
(ii) During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the earlier
counsel engaged by the Petitioner has been changed and the
Petitioner has engaged the present counsel to conduct the case
on his behalf. The matter was listed on 21.09.2016 for
admission, but the name of the newly engaged Advocate was
not reflected in the cause list. Therefore, he could not
participate in the proceeding before this Court. Since the matter
was year old, this Court disposed of the same on 21.09.2016 on
the basis of documents available in the Writ Petition and
without hearing the counsel properly.
(iii) Since the case of the Petitioner was not placed
properly, the grievance of the Petitioner has not been
considered by this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that
show cause reply filed by the Petitioner pursuant to the charge-
sheet was not accepted and it was suggested for conducting a
// 3 //
domestic enquiry. The finding in the enquiry report was against
the Petitioner. The Enquiry Committee failed to give credence
to the evidence of the defence. The domestic enquiry conducted
by the management is not fair and proper, since the
management has not given reasonable opportunity to the
delinquent workman the present Petitioner. Hence, the award is
illegal and improper and the judgment impugned is dissatisfied.
7. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the
gravity of offence which is minor in nature imposed a major
punishment like dismissal of service under the provisions of
30(ii)(a) of the certified standing order of the company which is
highly disproportionate. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
contends that this Court has failed to appreciate the case in
proper prospective. This Court has also failed to consider the
fact that the copies of the enquiry proceeding and the finding of
the enquiry officer were not served on the Petitioner/ workman
before imposition of punishment. He further cites some
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. in the cases of Union
of India & Ors. vrs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan1, Haryana
Financial Corporation & Anr. vrs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja2
and Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vrs. K.K. Verma3,
wherein it has been held that non-furnishing of the report to the
delinquent prior to imposition of punishment of removal is
likely to be prejudiced to the delinquent employee.
(1991) 1 SCC 588
(2008) 2 SCC (L &S) 789
(2011) 1 SCC (L & S) 408
// 4 //
8. In the factual background of the case, this Court has
committed error by not interfering with the finding of the award
given by the Labour Court.
9. In fact, the present case depicts that the Petitioner/
workman has been proceeded with both by way of initiation of
criminal case and departmental proceeding. The criminal case
has been initiated under Sections 341 and 323 of the I.P.C.
However, he was acquitted of the said criminal charges. But in
the departmental proceeding, he was found guilty. Law is well
settled that even a person is acquitted in the criminal
proceeding, there is no bar to hold him/ her guilty in the
departmental proceeding.
10. The grievance of the Opp. Party/ workman in the Writ
Petition was that since he has already been acquitted in the
criminal case, the departmental proceeding ought to have been
stayed. However, his claim is contrary to law, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony vrs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd4.
11. Since in the departmental proceeding, charges are quite
different from the charges leveled in the criminal case,
allegations leveled against the Petitioner/workman in
departmental proceeding have been found to be proved in the
domestic enquiry. Hence, the submissions of the learned
1999 LLJ SC 1416
// 5 //
counsel for the Petitioner cannot be acceded to. Further, there
was concurrent finding by both the Disciplinary Authority and
the Labour Court. It is well settled law that in the matter of
concurrent finding in the departmental proceeding, the scope of
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
very limited. Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on these issues in Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale vrs.
Union of India5, Ex-Constable Ram Vir Singh vrs. Union of
India and others6, State of U.P. and another vrs. Man
Mohan Nath Sinha and another7,Union of India vrs. K.G.
Soni8, B.C. Chaturvedi vrs. Union of India9, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. vrs. Ashok Kumar Arora10 and State
Bank of Hyderabad vrs. P. Kata Rao11 are quite clear and
held similar views.
12. In view of the settled position of law, the impugned
order sought to be reviewed is quite inconformity with the well
settled position of law. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain
the review petition, as the grounds raised in the review petition
do not conform to the parameters of seeking review of the
impugned order.
(2012) 13 SCC 142
(2009) 3 SCC 97
(2009) 8 SCC 310
(2006) 6 SCC 794
(1995) 6 SCC 749
(1997) 3 SCC 72
(2008) 15 SCC 657
// 6 //
13. Accordingly, the RVWPET is dismissed.
14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Jaswant Singh)
Judge
( S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
BJ
