RAJMANI SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated February 21, 2002, passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 448/2001, followed by dismissal of MCC No. 1295/2002 on January 24, 2003, filed for review of the order dated January 21, 2002, the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent.

(2.) The case of the appellant, in brief, is that he was working in Ramnagar Colliery with effect from 31/07/1977. He was charge sheeted on 24/05/1987. Thereafter, he was dismissed summarily from the service vide order dated 24/05/1987 passed by respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the appellant sent a representation to the Government. The Government of India referred the dispute for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"). The Tribunal, fixed the case for recording evidence and after recording evidence decided the reference against the appellant holding that misconduct of the workman has been fully established and the punishment of his dismissal from service is neither disproportionate nor harsh. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition No. 448/2001. In the writ petition it was put forth by the appellant that he was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 294/506-B and 341, Indian Penal Code. He faced the trial before the JMFC, Kotma, District Shahdol, in Criminal Case No. 61/1987 and vide judgment dated 16/09/1991 he was acquitted by the Court. The appellant also put forth that once he was acquitted by the competent Court, he could not have been punished in the departmental enquiry on the same allegations. In the writ petition, the appellant averred that the Tribunal should not have allowed management to lead evidence. He also submitted that the punishment of dismissal is very harsh in nature. His services ought not to have been dismissed after 13 years on the ground of an imaginary incident. It was prayed by the appellant that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential benefits.

(3.) The learned single Judge did not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the petition at the admission stage. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application (MCC No. 1298/2002) before the learned single Judge for review of the order dated January 21, 2002, passed in the writ petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the review petition also observing that no case is made out for review of the order. It is against this order that the appellant has come up in this appeal.