RABINDRA KUMAR BHARTI Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant/appellant while Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondents. Submission at the Bar is that the appeal can be taken up for hearing and disposal on papers available and dispensation of all formalities. Mr. Das waives service of notice of appeal.

(2.) Mr. Banerjee draws attention to communication dated 14/15th September, 2015 made by respondent employer on revoking order of suspension. He relies on extract therefrom as below.

(3.) He submits, the first Court did not correctly appreciate judgment of Supreme Court in Capt. M.Paul Antony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , 1999 3 SCC 679. The first Court did not appreciate that since the facts and evidence in both the proceedings are same, distinction easily drawn between departmental proceeding and criminal case on basis of approach and burden of proof, cannot be made applicable. The departmental proceeding could not have been allowed to proceed to final order in disposing of the writ petition, as done by impugned order.