Acquittal in a criminal case impacts subsequent disciplinary proceedings; domestic inquiries must adhere to principles of natural justice to be valid.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Award passed on 19.02.2003 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Reference No.128 of 1995 by which the Reference has been answered in favour of the respondent and further for issuance of other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions.

2. The Schedule of the Reference before the learned Court below was as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management of Kankanee Colliery under Sijua Area No.V of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Rajmuni Bhuia from service w.e.f. 22.05.92 is justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Bhuia is entitled ?”

3. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award dated 19.02.2003 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad (in short „C.G.I.T-2, Dhanbad‟) in Reference No.128 of 1995 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed grave illegality by passing the Award in favour of the Management-Respondent and has answered the Award in negative against the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal had mainly relied upon the preliminary hearing which was made on the issue for the domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was unfair. The learned Tribunal relied on the submission made by the counsel of the workman at the stage of preliminary hearing that the counsel will not raise any question with regard to legality, propriety and fairness of the domestic enquiry.

5. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by observing that the concession of the lawyer will prevail over the cause of the issue involved in the Industrial dispute. It is further submitted that the concession, of lawyer, can give any benefit to the Management particularly in a situation when the Industrial law is a beneficiary legislation and interest of the workman has to be looked into. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have found that during domestic enquiry the petitioner neither had been given reasonable opportunity nor document to defend his case and the preliminary hearing and decision of the Tribunal cannot finally prevent the workman for highlighting the illegality in preliminary enquiry at the time of final conclusion of the reference proceeding.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner-workman was acquitted on 23.09.1995 in the criminal case instituted under Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad. However, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the effect of document W-1 in which he had been acquitted. It is submitted that the harsh and disproportionate punishment has been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that this is a case of alleged recovery of only one piece of Copper Wire measuring around 7 feet along with fire wood and for which a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner and in the said criminal case the workman was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad, vide Exhibit W-1. Therefore, the Award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal and is fit to be set aside and the workman will be entitled to the relief with all the consequential benefits.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, has relied upon the judgments which are as follows:-

(i) (2012) 5 AD (Delhi) 691 (Sudesh Yadav vs. Oberoi Flight Services

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Management- Respondent submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad against the petitioner-workman is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is subm