BYOMKESH MISHRA Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.1.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1151 of 2003 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding and affirmed in a departmental appeal needs no interference.

(2.) It appears that the appellant while working as Supervisor-Ill in Mechanical Department of respondent-Hindustan Copper Limited was proceeded departmentally on the charge that he had fraudulently drawn 15 pieces of 30314 bearings from the Mines Stores of the respondent-Company. departmental proceeding was initiated d thereafter the appellant was dismissed from the service. Appellant moved this Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2230 of 1999(R) against the order of dismissal. The said writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was quashed on the ground that copy of enquiry report and other documents were not served upon the appellant. Against the aforesaid judgment, respondents preferred Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 107 of 1995(R). The Division Bench found that enquiry report consists of only 6 (six) pages which was supplied to the appellant and the total page of the file consist of 66(sixty-six) pages including the 6(six) page enquiry report. While setting aside the judgment passed by the learned single Judge, the Division Bench gave liberty to the appellant to prefer departmental appeal before the competent authority and to show that any particular document/exhibit was not taken into consideration. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, appellant again moved appellate authority. The appellate authority after giving full hearing to the appellant and considering the entire documents passed a reasoned order holding that the department proceeding was legally and validly conducted and the order or punishment passed by the disciplinary authority needs no interference. Appellant again moved this Court by filing a writ petition being, W.P.(S) No. 1151 of 2003. Learned single Judge by the impugned judgment after discussing tire aforesaid facts, held that some new grounds have been raised by the appellant, which cannot be considered by a Writ Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) Having regard to the facts discussed hereinabove and considering the settled principles of law, we are of the view that since the Appellate Authority re-appreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, learned single Judge rightly did not interfere with the impugned order of punishment.