DILIP BHUIYAN Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed, on 28.1.1989 and at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Mazdoor, C-II. In the incident dated 6.9.2000 a First Information Report was lodged by the Security Guard of the Central Coalfields Limited and a F.I.R. being, Gomia P.S. Case No. 91 of 2000 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown. On 19.1.2001 the petitioner was suspended and a charge-memo was served upon him. An amended charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on 24.2.2001. An enquiry was conducted into the matter and the enquiry report dated 7.8.2001 was Submitted. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.10.2001. By final order dated, 5.4.2002 the petitioner was dismissed from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 11.9.2002. In the criminal case though, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and put on trial he was acquitted of the criminal charge by order dated 20.12.2005 and therefore, the petitioner approached the respondent-authority on 17.2.2006 for revoking the order of dismissal from service. Since, the representation of they petitioner was not decided by the respondent-authority, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4108 of 2006 which was disposed 6f by order dated 5.2.2008 directing the appellate authority to pass an order, on the representation of the petitioners By order dated 9.9.2008, the appellate authority has affirmed the order dated 11.9.2002 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed taking a plea that, since proceeding in the criminal case arid departmental enquiry are different, acquittal in criminal case cannot be a ground to interfere with the punishment imposed in the departmental, proceeding. The relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is extracted below:--

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has' submitted that, since the charge against the petitioner is of theft and the petitioner has been acquitted of the said charge in the criminal case, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service from the date of dismissal. The learned counsel has further submitted that during the departmental enquiry only two witnesses were examined by the department and both witnesses are formal witnesses. These two witnesses were examined in the criminal case also and since, in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges, the penalty of dismissal from service is liable to be recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court MANAGEMENT, PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORPORATION LIMITED v. N BALAKRISHNAN, 2007 9 SCC 755, G M TANK v. STATE OF GUJARAT, 2006 5 SCC 446, M V BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA, 2006 5 SCC 88, AJIT KUMAR NAG v. GENERAL MANAGER (P J) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, 2005 7 SCC 764, UNION OF INDIA v. NAMAN SINGH SEKHAWAT, 2008 4 SCC 1 and STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. B K MEENA, 1996 6 SCC 417.