RAGHO SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal contained in Annexure 3 and the enquiry report contained in Annexure -4.

(2.) The petitioner was Civil Overseer in B.C.C.L. in Junkunder Open Cast Project (J.O.C.P.) in the year 1975. He was promoted to the post of Senior Overseer in the year 1979. In September 1981, he was served with a charge -sheet containing two allegations (a) that on 10 -9 -1981 at about 10.20 p.m. the petitioner alongwith Barma Singh and Angad Singh had gone to one Nunu Gope the driver of a Diesel Jeep, snatched away the key and after travelling a distance of 45 Kms. returned the Jeep at about 3 a.m. and (b) that on 11 -9 -1981 at about 3 p.m. he abused, threatened and assaulted Sri R. P. Majumdar, a Senior Welfare Officer of JOCP with the help of Angad Singh Barma Singh and Suresh Nonia all Union workers. He was suspended with immediate effect pending the domestic enquiry. He filed his show cause before the enquiry officer, respondent No. 5, denying the allegations. He participated in the enquiry. The witnesses were examined and cross examined and the enquiry report dated 7 -12 -1981 (Annexure -4) was submitted before the Management. The impugned order contained in Annexure 3, dated 23 -11 -1982 was passed by the disciplinary authority. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and found the charges levelled against the petitioner proved beyond doubt. The charges being serious in nature, the nature of punishment warranted the order of dismissal.

(3.) Mr. K. D. Chatterjee. learned Counsel appearing for the management has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the Deputy Personnel Manager of the B.C.C.L. has sworn the said counter affidavit It is contended that the question raised in the writ petition is fit for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. Since it raises an industrial dispute on the face of the allegation. The parties would be at liberty to lead evidence, before the industrial tribunal for the proper adjudication of the dispute. Further, there are basic disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. There is neither lack of inherent jurisdiction in the authority passing the impugned order, nor there is violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was given full opportunity before the domestic enquiry and the witnesses were examined and cross examined before the enquiry report was submitted to the management.