NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling in question the defensibility and justifiability of the order dated 31.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4298/2010 the present intra-Court appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The respondents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for stay of the departmental proceedings instituted against them till the trial, in FIR No.106/2009 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was finalized/pending or till the time cross-examination of the witnesses in the criminal trial was over.

(3.) The essential expose of facts are that the respondents are employees of the appellant company and they have been associated with various employees associations and have been espousing the case of the employees. In the year 2006, one Mr.Tobdan joined the appellant company as a Deputy General Manager and, as alleged, he ill-treated the employees. On 28.4.2009, an FIR bearing no.106/2009 was lodged by said Mr.Tobdan against the respondents-employees for offences punishable under Sections 323/341 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On 29.4.2009, the respondents employees were suspended and subsequently a chargesheet was issued to them by the appellant company and the departmental enquiry commenced. It was urged before the writ court that the chargesheet in the departmental proceeding was similar to the allegations made in the FIR on the basis of which the criminal prosecution has been launched. After the issuance of the chargesheet, the departmental proceeding continued but no material progress could be made as the same was adjourned from time to time. The matter was adjourned to 28.6.2010 for recording of the evidence of the management witnesses. At that juncture, the writ petition was filed, wherein the writ court directed the examination-in-chief of the witnesses who would appear on 28.6.2010 be recorded but cross examination may not be recorded and the employer shall not insist on cross-examination.