W.P. No. 14812 (W) of 2003. Case: Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Swadhin Kumar Banerjee and others. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 14812 (W) of 2003 |
| Judges | Prasenjit Mandal, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 379, 411, 420 |
| Judgement Date | July 29, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
-
This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus and/or prohibition and/or writ or writs in the nature thereof and/or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has contended that the respondent no.1 was a permanent employee of the petitioner at its Shankarpur Colliery under Bankola area and was posted as 'Storekeeper'. While he was on duty at the said colliery on September 3, 1994, some iron materials of the said colliery had been dispatched through some outside trucks in his connivance without observing the formalities and without the knowledge of any of the concerned Officers of the petitioner company posted in the said colliery. Accordingly, a departmental enquiry was lodged and the petitioner was directed to defend, but, he did not cooperate with the Enquiry Officer and he prayed for adjournments on two occasions and as a result, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report ex parte on the basis of which the petitioner issued the order of dismissal against the respondent no.1.
-
Thereafter, the matter went to the Tribunal and then the Tribunal upon understanding the above position allowed the parties to adduce evidence and on the basis of the evidence, the learned Tribunal found that the order of dismissal of the respondent no.1 was illegal and as such, the workman would be entitled to full back wages and reinstatement. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.
Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that so far as the earlier enquiry as to misconduct of the petitioner is concerned, the departmental proceeding proceeded ex parte in view of the fact that even when notices were issued to the respondent no.1, he did not cooperate and he filed an application expressing his grievance to attend on the medical ground.
-
Anyway, the Enquiry Officer did not believe in such statement and disposed of the departmental proceeding ex parte on the basis of which the petitioner dismissed him from service. The matter came before the Appellate Tribunal, and then the learned Tribunal gave an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in respect of the respective contentions. Consequently, the petitioner examined two witnesses, namely, M.W.1 & M.W.2 and the respondent no.1 has examined himself as witness for the W.W.1.
-
Upon analysis of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the management has failed to establish the charge against the workman and that there is no basis to publish the workman by way of dismissal from service. Accordingly, appropriate orders for reinstatement was passed.
-
The respondent no.1 was given charge sheet alleging theft, fraud or dishonesty in...
To continue reading
Request your trial