IMPORTANT POINT
A dismissal based solely on a criminal conviction that is later overturned lacks legal standing, necessitating reinstatement and the provision of benefits to the affected employee.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 9385 of 2023:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 47 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. No counter to the delay condonation application has been filed.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 47 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

L.P.A. No. 217 of 2022:

Prayer:

6. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1131 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 25.07.2020 on being sought to recall the order of dismissal after acquittal in the criminal case.

Facts:

7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:

The original writ-petitioner, namely, Ramesh Vishwakarma, while in employment at Rajrappa Project of respondent-CCL, was issued a showcause dated 16.07.2020 to the effect that his ‘conviction’ awarded by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh (Jharkhand) in GR/ Cases/ 00000/2017, CNR No. JHRG030003142017, amounts to misconduct under Clause 26.08 of Certified Standing Orders of CCL and thereby he was sought for his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from the employment of company.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that his wife had informed the Project Management of CCL regarding arrest of the writ-petitioner on 21.07.2017. Subsequently, the writ-petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 28.01.2017 for the same set of charge which was the subject matter of criminal trial leading to his conviction. The writ-petitioner replied to the chargesheet on 28.01.2017, while he was in judicial custody at Ramgarh Jail. On being enlarged on bail on 07.02.2017, petitioner reported for duty on 08.02.2017 and was allowed to resume his duty by office order dated 13.02.2017. However, further proceedings in relation to the charge-sheet dated 28.01.2017 remained awaited and thereby findings to the alleged act of misconduct including moral turpitude did not reach to its logical end and remain inconclusive. However, on receipt of the show-cause dated 16.07.2020, the petitioner submitted representation on 18.07.2020 seeking one week’s time to submit his reply since three days’ time was not sufficient to submit his reply.

The writ-petitioner further submitted a representation on 20.07.2020 stating that he had not received the copy of order/ judgment delivered by learned Trial Court and as such, he was unable to submit explanation. However, the respondents instead of giving an objective consideration to the writ-petitioner’s representations, passed the impugned order of punishment dated 25.07.2020, dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Company holding him guilty under Clause 26.8 of Certified Standing Orders of M/s. CCL. It is the specific case of the writ-petitioner that before inflicting the order of punishment no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

Being aggrieved with the said order of dismissal dated 25.07.2020 approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1131 of 2021 which has been dismissed refusing to interfere with the order of dismissal against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.

8. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner while working as Senior Dumper Coal Operator under the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd. although was decided to be proceeded departmentally by issuance of chargesheet, however, one criminal case was also instituted for the same set of