ANWARUL HAQUE Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was dismissed from service with effect from 17.10.2001 has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 17.10.2001 and consequently, his reinstatement in the service and other reliefs.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Fitter (Electrical) on 03.01.1972 in Bokaro Steel Limited (BSL). On the basis of a written statement of one B.K.S. Chauhan, a constable of C.I.S.F, a Criminal Case being Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 398 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner under Section 379 / 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 29.12.1997 and a Charge Memo was issued for theft of Company's property. By a corrigendum dated 14 / 17.07.1998, the date of suspension of the petitioner was shifted back from 29.12.1997 to 22.11.1997. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him. However, an enquiry committee was constituted by order dated 14.07.1998 which was required to submit its report within 45 days. In the mean time, by order dated 28.08.2001, the petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 379 / 411 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2001 challenging order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2001. Thereafter, on 17.10.2001, the respondent-company dispensed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and in view of order of conviction dated 28.08.2001, dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 17.10.2001. The Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was allowed and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2001 was set-aside by the Court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bokaro. The petitioner submitted his representation on 09.04.2002 to the respondent company for his reinstatement in service however, inspite of several reminders and representations, the petitioner was not reinstated in service and on 04.09.2003, he was served an eviction notice for illegally occupying company's quarter. The petitioner has therefore, filed the present writ petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the dismissal of the petitioner from the service and other orders impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent company can not have any trust or confidence in such an employee who has been prosecuted in a criminal case notwithstanding his acquittal by the appellate Court.