The acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a departmental enquiry, and the loss of confidence by the management can be a valid reason for dismissal.

Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioner is in the business of mining operations. The respondents joined the services of the petitioner company initially as mine workers, and were later promoted as drillers and thereafter as tractor drivers, in the year 1982. That the respondents have been in the services of the petitioner company for almost 25 years as on the date of their dismissal. It is the case of the workmen that on 09.05.1997, they were all called to the Sandur Police Station on the pretext of a clarification that was sought for. They were detained in the police station on false charges that they are involved in a theft case. They were produced before the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, they were released on bail. A false case was foisted upon the workmen, on the allegation that some workmen were moving suspiciously with a gunny bag on 17.06.1997 and they were apprehended by the police along with some materials goods which were identified as the goods belonging to the Management. Though the workmen had nothing to do with the so-called seized goods and no complaint was lodged to the police by the Management, they were kept in custody by the police from 09.06.1997 to 17.06.1997. On trial, by the judgment dated 09.09.1999, the workmen were acquitted.

2. However, in the interregnum the Management issued a charge-sheet against the workmen alleging theft of certain articles. On denial of the charges, a domestic enquiry was ordered. The Enquiring Officer submitted his finding, that they were guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding of the Enquiring Officer, while imposing the punishment of dismissal of the workmen.

3. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal for setting-aside the impugned dismissal order seeking reinstatement, back-wages and continuity of services, etc. The Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the enquiry report had directed the petitioner to reinstate the workmen with 50% backwages from 01.02.2001 till the date of reinstatement along with continuity of services and all other retiremental benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the Management has filed the present petition.

4. Shri. Kasturi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner's counsel contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to beset-aside. That the Tribunal committed an error in misreading the evidence on record. That it failed to appreciate the material on record. That the Tribunal was misguided by the acquittal of the respondents. That the acquittal would not be a bar to a departmental enquiry. The findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer are just and proper. That the Enquiring Officer has considered all the material on record. Therefore, he pleads that the award of the Tribunal be set-aside by confirming the order of the Enquiring Officer, dismissing the workmen from the services.

5. Reliance is placed on the following judgments:

(i) Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram, AIR 2013 SC 14 : (2013) 1 SCC 598 .

(iii) Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1996) 7 AD SC 764 .

(iii) Union of India (UOI) Vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 .

6. On the other hand Shri. A.J. Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent workmen defends the impugned order. He contends that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for interference. That the contentions of the petitioner are unsustainable. That the evidence of the Management witnesses are not sufficient to implicate the respondents. So far as the commission of theft is concerned, the facts would narrate that they were summed to the Police Station wherein theft confession statements were recorded. That such a confession statement is sought to be held against the respondent - workmen. That they were forced to sign the confession statement, which their have stated before the Enquiring Officer. That the evidence as lead in by the Management does not infuse any confidence. That the evidence ca