CHIEF MANAGER, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SURJIT SINGH S/O SHRI SHIVRAM, MECHANIC GRADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner preferred by the petitioner-RSRTC assails the order dated 30/11/2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the application submitted for seeking approval of removal order dated 10/01/1997 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been rejected and the order of removal has been disapproved.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings conducted by the petitioner-RSRTC were found to be fair vide order dated 15/09/2015 by the Tribunal having been conducted in terms of the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal has thereafter erred in rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947. It is submitted that the evidence of Ashok Kumar and Hari Singh was recorded in departmental proceedings who both stated that the stolen goods were found in possession of the workman Surjeet Singh. It is submitted that the FIR had been registered with regard to the same allegations. Therein, the respondent-workman was acquitted in appeal vide order dated 16/06/2001.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that merely because the respondent-workman was acquitted by the appellate court in the criminal appeal preferred by him, it cannot be said that the respondent-workman was not guilty of the misconduct in departmental proceedings where the departmental authority had an independent decision to take. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others v. Sankar Singh : (2014) 3 SCC 610 wherein there were identical charges levelled in departmental as well as criminal proceedings. It was held that once an employee has been acquitted by a criminal court, it would not mean that reinstatement was automatic and there is no rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a criminal court even though the charges levelled against the delinquent officer before the enquiry officer as well as criminal court are same. The acquittal of Police Officer by a criminal court would not bar award of departmental punishment. In the circumstances, counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman having been found to be in possession of the stolen articles, no interference was required to be made by the Labour Court and the approval ought to have been granted to the removal order dated 10/01/1997.