A VISWANATHAN Vs. BHARATH PETROLEUM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against order of dismissal awarded against these three petitioners who were erstwhile employees of the first respondent Bharath Petroleum Limited. Two out of the three petitioners viz., 1&3 were watchmen while the 2nd petitioner was oiler. Being watchmen at the yard, the duty of the 1st and 3rd petitioners was to see that no theft of any material takes place in the yard. On 21.10.1989 an employee of the company by name Sathiyaseelan got a communication informing that there would be a theft of Benzene with the connivance of the employees who were working as watchmen and with the others who were working there in other capacity. Subsequently it so happened and there was a theft of Benzene worth Rupees One Lakh and Thirty Thousand which was established from the readings of the depth meter. A police Complaint came to be made, on the basis of which one person called Gaja was arrested. His confession statement was recorded and the stolen Benzene was recovered though not fully. Prosecution was conducted on the basis of this report against as many as 8 persons out of which the present three petitioners were acquitted. The acquittal was on the basis that there was no eye-witness examined to say that the theft was being committed and that the investigation officer was also not examined. This view was taken by the learned Magistrate as there was no evidence to suggest that the accused persons or any of them had any hand in the said theft. The learned Magistrate has studiously avoided to give a finding as to whether there was a theft or not which issue in any event should not have been avoided. After the acquittal, however the first respondent instituted an enquiry and that enquiry was allowed to go on. In that enquiry, the first respondent examined as many as eight witnesses including one Sathiyaseelan and has also produced about 96 documents. Though there was initial injunction against the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry, ultimately that question has been finally allowed to rest by the judgement of this court in the Second Appeal whereby the suits filed by the petitioners have been dismissed and the first respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry.

(2.) As has been stated earlier, the enquiry was proceeded and as a result thereof, the delinquents were found guilty. Out of them these three have challenged the proceedings of enquiry as also the punishment of dismissal imposed on them.

(3.) At the outset Mr.Kalyanasundaram, learned senior counsell appearing for the petitioners contended that this was a case where there was absolutely no material to hold that the petitioners or any one of them were in any manner responsible for the theft or connected with the same. Learned counsel very heavily relied on the judgement and points out that the whole prosecution was based on the so called confession statement of one Gaja and had to fail as the Criminal Court has rejected the confession. He further says that there was no witness examined to suggest the direct participation of the petitioners or any one of them in the theft and they were available on the concerned day 21.10.1989 when the lorry left the premises with the load of stolen Benzene and the lorry was brought there at the behest of the petitioners.