TATA POWER CO LTD Vs. K T MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule,</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent waives service. With the consent of the Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(3.) The First Respondent was employed with the Petitioner. During the course of his employment, the First Respondent was charged of the commission of offences under Section 302 and 498A of the Penal Code. By a Judgment dated 24th December 1997, the First Respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the ground that the benefit of doubt should be given to him. He was, however, convicted of offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Penal Code. The First Respondent was in custody since 22nd December 1993. He was directed to be released on the sentence undergone on 5th February 1998. The Petitioner issued a notice to show cause to the First Respondent in pursuance of an Application received by the First Respondent on 14th January 1998, furnishing a copy of the Judgment of the Sessions Court. The notice alleged that, the First Respondent was convicted of a grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude and he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service under Clause 32(xxii) of the Certified Standing Orders read with Clause 33(1). By his reply dated 12th February 1998 the First Respondent admitted that he was prosecuted in C.R. No. 447/93 for offences under Section 302, 498A and 306 of the Penal Code and that he had been convicted by the Sessions Judge. The relevant part of the reply of the First Respondent reads as follows:

(4.) On 23rd February 1998 the First Respondent was dismissed from service. The First Respondent moved the Labour Court in an Application under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Rules Act 1946. Since no departmental inquiry had been held, the employer sought an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the action of dismissal. The Labour Court having granted that opportunity, the Petitioner adduced evidence in support of the charge of misconduct of its Senior Executive Engineer. The witness, during the course of his cross-examination denied the suggestion that the conviction was not on a charge of misconduct involving moral turpitude. In paragraph 4 of the Affidavit of examination, the witness stated thus: