RAMESH CHAND BAHREE Vs. OM PRADASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON -petitioner Om Prakash filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, on 4 -10 -74 against R.C. Bahree and Har Bhajan Singh Bhattal, under Sections 166, 167, 218 and 120B I.P.C. He alleged that he was a drillman in the employment of the Hindustan Copper Ltd., and is an active member of the Workers' Union, namely, Rashtriya Khetri Tamba Project Mazdoor Sangh. There is a rival union Tamba Sharamik Sangh which enjoys official patronage. The accused who are officers of the company were determined to destroy the union to which the complainant belonged. On 5 -5 -73 the complainant was beaten by the drill operator. He submitted a report of this beating to the Drilling Engineer but no action was taken. On the other hand, a charge -sheet was issued against the complainant for beating and for disobeying the operator. He was instructed to regularly report at the main gate barrier and sign a register for suspended workmen available with the security staff. This direction was in contravention of the certified standing orders. Further, according to the said orders, a suspended workman is required to be paid an allowance equal to half his basic pay plus D.A. for the entire period of suspension. If the enquiry is not completed within three months, then, the subsistence allowance is paid at the rate of 3/4 of the basic salary plus D.A. But R.C. Bahree who was responsible for such payment, did not make any such payment knowingly and intending to cause injury in the body and mind of the complainant, and thus acted against the clear direction of law.

(2.) THE inquiry was conducted by Har Bhajan Singh Bhattal. He did not allow him to put questions to the witnesses. He then complained that the Inquiry Officer was biased. But the Inquiry Officer Mas not charged. On 10 -1 -74 the complainant was refused an adjournment and the Inquiry Officer continued the inquiry behind his back. And yet, the Inquiry Officer mentioned in his report that lull opportunity was given to the complainant and that after inquiry, the charges were found proved. Thereupon, the accused No. 1 Shri R.C. Bahree made an order on 15 -2 -74 reducing his basic pay by three steps. When the accused No. 1 came to know that the complainant had earned only two increments and the order passed by him cannot cause the full harm intended he charged his order and issued another one stopping three grade increments. He h as thus passed two punishment orders in respect of one misconduct. According to the certified standing orders, he was tint her required to mention the authority to whom and the time within which an appeal can be filed but the accused No. 1 did not mention both these things in the punishment order with the sole motive that the complainant may remain in dark and may not be in a position to file an appeal against the unlawful order. Having thus violated the various provisions of law, the accused have committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the non -petitioner has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order is an interlocutory one and revisions against interlocutory orders having been specifically barred under Sub -section (2) of Section 397 CrPC, the powers under Section 482 thereof, cannot be invoked to revise an interlocutory order. I have discussed this matter in detail in Malam Singh v. State S.B. Cr. Misc. Application 747/1975 decided on 17th September, 1976). I have held therein that what Section 397(2) bars is a revision against interlocutory orders but the revisional jurisdiction is quite different from the inherent jurisdiction, each one dealing with separate situations and matters. Therefore, there is no bar to the exercise of the powers under Section 482 CrPC in respect of interlocutory orders, Section 397(2) notwithstanding. The only restrictions on such exercise are (1) that such powers can be invoked only in case of the three situations mention' d in Section 482 CrPC and (2) that such powers cannot be exercised in regard to matters which are specifically covered by any other provision of the Cede.