This Court disposed of a writ appeal arising from the discharge of an appellant from service by an employer due to a departmental finding proven in a departmental inquiry despite subsequent acquittal in a criminal case.
The 2nd respondent directed to pay retirement benefits to the appellant within six weeks of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No.561 of 2014
JUDGMENT : (Per LNR,,J)
The appellant and another joined the service of
M/s. Hindusthan Zink Limited, the 2nd respondent, as a Mazdoor on 18.06.1980 and his services in that post were confirmed on 16.09.1981. He was promoted as Senior Helper in the year 1995.
The 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and placed him under suspension on 08.06.1999. It was followed by a charge sheet, dated 23.06.1999. It was alleged that the appellant and another person by name B. Peeru Babu have committed theft of electrodes. Simultaneously, criminal proceedings before the criminal Courts were also initiated. In the criminal case, however, the appellant was acquitted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 03.10.2000, holding that the charges against the appellant were proved. The 2nd respondent accepted the findings in the report and issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, proposing major punishment. The appellant submitted an explanation, and taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 31.03.2001, discharging the appellant from service. Departmental appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected.
The appellant approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by filing I.D.L.C.I.D.No.64 of 2002. Several grounds were urged by the appellant before the Tribunal. In its award dated 15.03.2004, the Tribunal took the view that though the charge against the appellant is not fully proved,
there is valid suspicion against him, and since the employer i.e., the 2nd respondent lost confidence, the only relief that can be granted to the appellant is to require the employer to pay some compensation. Accordingly, a sum representing ten months’ salary was directed to be paid.
Not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed W.P.No.19684 of 2004. Through the order under appeal, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed that the appellant be extended, the benefit of VRS, if it was vogue in the 2nd respondent Company, as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, and if such a scheme did not exist, the retirement benefits, by treating the date of the award as the date of retirement. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the appellant preferred this Writ Appeal.
Heard Smt. M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Assistant Solicitor General for the 1st respondent and M.s, V.Uma Devi, learned counsel, representing Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
The appellant approached the Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by the order of discharge. It is, no doubt, true that the criminal case ended in acquittal and the charge of theft of electrodes was held not proved. In the departmental proceedings, however, a different conclusion was arrived at. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal discloses that no serious effort was made to maintain the distinction between the parameters that are relevant in the departmental proceedings, on the one hand, and the criminal proceedings, on the other hand. The Tribunal agreed with the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings, though some doubt was entertained, as to the proof of the charge in its
entirety, it was observed that there was valid suspicion against the appellant, in the context of missing of electrodes. A clear observation was made to the effect that the 2nd respondent lost confidence in the appellant. Obviously for that reason, compensation representing the salary for ten months was awarded.
In the writ petition or in the writ appeal, the appellant was not able to demonstrate, as to how the findings recorded by the Tribunal are either perverse or without any evidence, it hardly needs any mention that the Tribunal happens to be the final forum on facts and this Court cannot the evidence. It is only when the award is found to be perverse or when the findings are absolutely without evidence, that the possibility may exist to interfere with them, in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge did not notice any such factors, nor do we. The only controversy is about the nature of relief, that is to be granted to the appellant.
The starting point, in this regard, happens to be the very direction issued by the Tribunal for payment of amount representing ten months’ salary. No basis was indicated for that. The learned Single Judge adopted an objective approach and issued alternative directions. It was directed that in case there existed any voluntary retirement scheme as on the date of the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant be extended the benefit thereof, and if not, the appellant be treated as having retired from service on the date of award and the retirement benefits be extended.
Though it was asserted across the Bar that there existed the voluntary retirement scheme as on the date of the award, the same is flatly denied by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The appellant is not able to substantiate his contention. The inevitable conclusion is that the appellant be extended the retirement benefits, treating the date of the award as the date of superannuation. Correspondence, in this
behalf, ensued and, at one point of time, the 2nd respondent offered a sum of Rs.98,253/-. The calculation memo submitted by the appellant reflected a higher amount. Left to it, the 2nd respondent did not prefer any appeal, and it was under obligation to extend the alternative relief of payment of retirement benefits.
We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeal, directing that
There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of.
_____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
9th June, 2014 cbs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.A.No.561 of 2014
cbs
9th June, 2014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in directing retirement benefits instead of compensation when no clear Voluntary Retirement Scheme existed.
Whether the Tribunal's award relied on lack of confidence despite criminal acquittal constituted a valid ground for discharge with compensation.
What relief is appropriate in a departmental proceeding where a guilty verdict in a departmental inquiry conflicts with a criminal acquittal.
The appellant and another
M/s. Hindusthan Zink Limited
Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
