Acquittal in a criminal case does not necessarily lead to exoneration in a departmental enquiry if the charges are different.

( 1 ) THIS petition by an employee is directed against the orders of the learned Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur as well as the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur.

( 2 ) FACTS, which are material for deciding this petition, are as under : on 7-1-1990, the petitioner entered the cabin of his superior one Shri Ghatole, Traffic Inspector of Umrer Depot, in drunken condition and abused him. This led to filing of a criminal case as well as slapping a chargesheet upon the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry, which was held, the charge was held to have been proved and on 19-4-1991, the petitioner was dismissed from service. In the criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, umrer, the petitioner was acquitted of offence punishable under Section 85 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Labour Court, Nagpur by filing complaint under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act complaining of unfair labour practice. The learned Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur, held that the enquiry was fairly held, it was conducted by a competent officer, the findings were not perverse and, therefore, held that the dismissal of the petitioner did not amount to unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and pulp Act.

( 3 ) I have heard Shri A. H. Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioner-employee, and Shri R. S. Charpe, learned counsel for the respondent-employer.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry and the criminal case were based on the same facts and the same witnesses were cited in the two proceedings. Therefore, acquittal in the criminal case would necessitate exoneration of the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. He further submitted that in the departmental enquiry, the Medical Officer was not examined and even the medical report was not tendered to show that the petitioner was in fact in a drunken state at the relevant time. Therefore, according to him, the charge was not at all proved and the Labour Court and the Industrial Court ought to have held accordingly. He relied on a judgment of the supreme Court in G. M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others, reported at (2006) 5 SCC 446. It may be useful to reproduce paragraphs 30 to 32 of the judgment, which have been read over to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the criminal court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellants residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer Mr V. B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document