A dismissal based on a departmental enquiry and findings of misconduct is justified, even if the employee's conviction for a criminal offence involving moral turpitude is later set aside.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, dated 10th December, 1955, dismissing his suit for damages for wrongful dismissal.

2. The material facts, not in dispute, are these. On 7th February, 1947, the plaintiff was employed by the Tata Locomotive and Engineering Company Ltd. the defendant, as a Material Checker on a monthly salary of Rs. 40.00 in the scale of Rs. 40-5-60. On 8th June, 1948, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Ward Keeper on a salary of Rs. 75 per month, in the grade pay of Rs. 75-5-100 which, on account of the revision of the wage structure in 1949, was refixed at Rs. 85-5-100, and from 8th June, 1949, the plaintiff was drawing a salary of Rs. 85 per month, besides dearness allowance of Rs. 8/87- and emergency bonus and food rebate of Rs. 10 per month. On 8th August, 1949, two tons of Mild Steel Rods of half inch diameter disappeared from his custody. The plaintiffs case was that Kundan Singh Bedi, the contractor, urgently required the iron rods in connection with the work of the defendant and that Mr. Sharma, his agent, took away those iron rods. This aroused the suspicion of Mr. J. Winfield, Inspector-in-charge Watch and Ward, and he investigated into the matter. It transpired during the investigation that Kundan Singh Bedi had no contract work since after 4th August, 1949, and had not been authorised to draw the said iron rods, and that the plaintiff made over the iron rods to Mr. Sharma without authority. Mr. Winfield accordingly submitted a report on 9th August, 1949 (Ext. K). On the same day, that is, 9th August, 1949, Mr. Rao, Stores Controller, by a letter dated: 9/10th August, 1949 (Ext. A1) detailing the circumstances of the loss of the iron rods, asked the plaintiff to explain under what circumstances the materials (iron rods) were issued from his sub-stores-which, as he was aware, were only meant for the use of the Resident Engineer and not any other department of the defendant. The plaintiff submitted his explanation on nth August, 1949 (vide Ext. A2). He admitted that he had made over the iron rods to Mr. Sharma without proper authority and pleaded good faith and concluded his explanation in these words :

"I do admit that this is a mistake done by me. In future I shall be very very careful. Please do the needful."

Thereafter, Mr. K. C. Cooper, Administrative Officer, lodged First Information Report against the-plaintiff and Mr. Sharma for their prosecution for criminal breach of trust. Mr. Sharma absconded, and the trial proceeded against the plaintiff alone. In the meantime the plaintiff was suspended from service with effect from 11th October, 1949. The cuspension order reads as follows :

"Mr. J. L. Toppo T. No. 200529 (Asst Ward Keeper) is suspended with effect from 11-10-49 as-he has been accused in a Court of Law for criminal offences. He will remain under suspension until the decision of the Court, when further orders will follow".

Vide Ext. 2.

In due course the trial concluded and the plaintiff was convicted on 4th September, 1951, under Sec. 408, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 or, in default, suffer three months rigorous imprisonment (vide judgment Ext. M). In view of his conviction, Mr. K. C. Cooper, Administrative Officer, dismissed the plaintiff from service with effect from the date of his suspension, that is, from 11th October 1949, by order dated 25th September, 1951 (Ext. J) which is as follows :

"Mr. J. L. Toppo, T. No. 20/10515/1, Assistant Ward Keeper, having been convicted in a Court of Law is dismissed from the service of the Company with effect from 11-10-1949".

This order was communicated to the plaintiff on 1st October 1951 (Ext. I). On 15th December, 1952, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him were confirmed by the Additional Sessions. Judge in appeal (Ext. MI). Against this order the plaintiff moved the High Court in re