Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1191
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
V.M. VELUMANI, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.
Steel Authority of India and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Tanushree Dey and Another – Respondents
WPCT No. 119 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: L.K. Gupta, Arjun Roy Mukherjee, Supriya Dubey.
For the Respondents: Shyamal Kr. Das, Somnath Banerjee.
The post-mortem report is a public document of unimpeachable nature and cannot be shaken by the subsequent finding of any enquiry committee, unless the committee members are qualified medical practitioners.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - EMPLOYEES FAMILY BENEFIT SCHEME - SAIL - CIRCULAR APPLICABILITY - DEATH ON DUTY - NATURAL DEATH - POST-MORTEM REPORT - ENQUIRY COMMITTEE REPORT - INTERPRETATION OF CIRCULAR - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - FACT OF THE CASE - FINDING OF THE COURT - ISSUES - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION - MAIN LEGAL POINT - CATEGORY - SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
An employee of SAIL - IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur died during the course of his employment. The post-mortem report indicated the cause of death as head injury. The petitioners, relying on the enquiry committee report, contended that the death was due to natural causes and denied compassionate appointment to the deceased's family. The respondents challenged this decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which directed the petitioners to consider the applicability of a particular clause of a circular based on the post-mortem report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicable circular in the case was the one governing employees of IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur, and not the one for employees of SAIL - Durgapur Steel Plant. The court further held that the post-mortem report was a public document of unimpeachable nature and could not be shaken by the subsequent finding of the enquiry committee. The court also noted that the members of the enquiry committee were not qualified medical practitioners and their report could not be relied upon to ascertain the medical grounds for the employee's death.
Issues: 1. Which circular of SAIL would be the governing circular in case of the present respondents? 2. Whether the petitioners were justified in regretting respondents’ prayer for compassionate appointment vide their order dated July 18, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The governing circular in case of the present respondents would be the circular of IISCO/Burnpur no. PL/OD/32/1632 dated December 14, 2010, as the deceased employee was working at IISCO. 2. The post-mortem report is a public document of unimpeachable nature and cannot be shaken by the subsequent finding of any enquiry committee, unless the committee members are qualified medical practitioners.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the petitioners to reconsider the respondents' prayer for compassionate appointment in light of the court's observations. The petitioners were directed to complete the exercise within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, dated December 14, 2021, delivered in Original Application No. 350/01742/2016.
2. Before dwelling on the grounds of challenge put forth by the petitioners, the factual background of the case may be discussed in a nut-shell. One Nirmal Chandra Dey, now deceased, was an employee (Senior Technician) of Town Services Department of the IISCO Steel Plant - SAIL (Burnpur). On January 25, 2016, he died during the course of his employment. Police started an unnatural death case and post-mortem was held on January 26, 2016. The post-mortem report, as enclosed with this writ petition would show that the autopsy surgeon has found the ‘immediate cause’ of death to be the ‘head injury’. Subsequently, at the instance of the present petitioner an enquiry committee was formed, consisting of three ‘Executives’ of the Company, to enquire as to the cause of death of said deceased employee Nirmal Chandra Dey. After enquiry, the committee has come to the decision that the said person died a natural death, though in the course of his employment. The committee opined that under such circumstances and pursuant to the applicable rules, the present respondent nos. 1 and 2 would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Respondent no. 1/wife of the said deceased person has subsequently made an application for compassionate appointment for respondent no. 2/son of the said deceased employee, before the authorities. The said prayer of the respondents was rejected by the authorities by dint of an order dated July 18, 2016. The above mentioned Original Application was preferred thereafter, by the respondents before the Tribunal, to challenge the said order of rejection dated July 18, 2016.
3. It would be now pertinent to have a cursory look to the impugned order of the Tribunal as mentioned above. The Tribunal has directed the authority, that is, the petitioner herein, to decide on the point of applicability of “Clause 9.2” of the circular dated January 31, 2012 of SAIL - Durgapur Steel Plant, to the deceased employee, strictly in terms of the report of the post-mortem examination dated January 16, 2016. Before coming to the find as above, the Tribunal noted its observation that:
“8. It is not disputed that the medical history of the deceased employee discloses that he was a patient of acute coronary syndrome, and that his state of health was not too good, being afflicted with low blood pressure and high blood sugar, the trigger to the ex-employee’s demise was undoubtedly the fall in his place of duty. As the enquiry report does not disclose that the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination was cross-examined, we find there is nothing in the report that objectively rejects the findings of the post-mortem examination.
9. Enquiry Report of 06.04.2016 (Annexure A-9 to the O.A.) cannot be relied upon as it arrives at no objective contradictions to the findings of the post-mortem examination and the enquiry under Section 174 CrPC. Further, neither the doctor conducting the post-mortem examination at Asansol Dist. Hospital (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.) nor the doctor who had attended the deceased employee on 25.01.2016 (Annexure A-3 to the O.A) had been heard during such enquiry.
Accordingly, we would set aside the orders dated 16.07.2016 (at Annexure A-7 to the O.A) whereby the authorities had concluded that the death of the deceased employee was a natural death.”
The Tribunal had set aside petitioner’s order dated July 16, 2016, whereby the petitioners had concluded the death of the deceased employee as a natural death. The Tribunal has also opined that inquest report as well as the post-mortem report would indicate that the case of the deceased employee was covered under “Clause 9.2” of the circular dated January 31, 2012. These findings have prompted the Tribunal to dispose of the case, with the direct
