UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the railway administration challenging the legality of the impugned order dated December 30, 1988 (Annexure-6) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna in Case No. 3 of 1980 under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

(2.) The short facts of this case are noted below: Respondent No. 2 Satycndra Narayan Ghosh was appointed on April 18, 1938 as an employee of the then Railway Company which later on was taken over by the Government of India and was entrusted to the North East Frontier Railway. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the year 1967 while respondent No. 2 was posted as Station Master, Jalalgarh in the district of Purnea, the allegation of misappropriation of money was levelled against respondent No. 2 and the said respondent No. 2 was placed under suspension on October 30, 1987 and a criminal case was instituted against him by the C. B. I. in the Court of the Special Judge, Patna. Subsequently a departmental enquiry was also initiated against respondent No. 2. When the matter was subjudice in the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna, the railway administration did not take action on the basis of the report submitted in the departmental enquiry proceedings. It appears that ultimately respondent No. 2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 409 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(c)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months vide judgment dated September 14, 1973. Against the said judgment respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before this Court. The said appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1973. By judgment dated October 16, 1979 the said appeal was allowed on merits and the learned Judge deciding the said appeal held that "the prosecution has not been able to prove charges against the appellant and he is, therefore, acquitted of all the charges." The learned Judge deciding the appeal has also commented upon the strange procedure followed in the departmental proceeding. Be that as it may, in law after the said order of acquittal was passed by the High Court, it cannot be said that respondent No. 2 is accused of an offence for which he was charged.

(3.) By the time the appeal was allowed and tile judgment was delivered, respondent No. 2 was dismissed from service in view of the finding of conviction given by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Patna. The said order of dismissal was passed on April 19, 1976. From perusal of the said dismissal order it appears that the dismissal order solely rests on the conviction of respondent No. 2 by the criminal Court. The respondent No. 2 reached the age of superannuation on December 1, 1977. This also happened before the High Court acquitted respondent No. 2 of the charges levelled against him.