…. Employers in relation to the Management of Lakhimata Colliery under Mugma Area of v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (L) No. 3479 of 2022 …. Employers in relation to the Management of Lakhimata Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s ECL (Eastern Coalfields Ltd.) through its General Manager having its Office at Mugma Area, Mugma, Nirsa, Dhanbad Versus …… Petitioner Their workman Sri Anil Rajwar represented by the Assistant Joint General Secretary, Jharkhand Janta Mazdoor Union [JJMU], Vishwakarma Colony, Nutandih, Dhanbad, Jharkhand ----- …… Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate : None For the Resp. ORAL ORDER IN THE COURT ----- 06/12.07.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned Award dated 11.10.2021 passed in Reference No. 23 of 2008 [ i.e. Annexure-18] by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, then learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad which was answered in favour of their respondent-workman whereby the Management of Lakhimata Colliery of M/s ECL has been directed to reinstate the concerned workman, namely Anil Rajwar on the post of Underground Loader from the date of his dismissal from service with immediate effect after publication of the Award. However, it has further been held that the concerned workman Anil Rajwar is not entitled for any back wages. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Award dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted 1 that learned Tribunal has committed grave illegality by directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent –workman by passing the Award in favour of the respondent –workman. It is submitted that respondent-workman was a habitual absentee and he had only worked 32 days in the year 2008 and has not worked in the year 2009 and 2010 at all. It is further submitted that he was chargesheeted for remaining absent from 05.06.2011 till 15.06.2012. He was also chargesheeted on 04.07.2011 for remaining absent from 05.06.2011 and for non-working in the year 2009 and 2010 and had worked for 32 days in the year 2008 only. It is submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner and the workman was served with the copy of Enquiry Report and even 2nd show cause notice was issued upon the workman and he admitted that he was ill and hence, the Disciplinary Authority had terminated the respondent-workman from services vide Annexure-11. It is submitted that the reference was barred by limitation. It is submitted that workman had failed to prove that the copy of Enquiry Report was not served upon him and there was no such pleading. It is further submitted that the Medical Certificate dated 04.06.2011 marked as Ext.-W 3 is forged and fabricated document as the same has been issued by Dr. S. K. Mondal, who is a Pediatrician and Gynecologist whereas the workman has explained that he was suffering from mental illness and even the certificate dated 04.06.2011 was signed on 17.11.2011. However, learned Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the said Medical Certificate issued on 04.06.2011 and hence, the impugned Award may be set aside as the respondent –workman is not entitled for reinstatement. Hence, this writ petition may be allowed. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent-workman on 2 repeated call. 5. It transpires that the concerned Workman was chargesheeted on 04.07.2011 for remaining absent since 05.06.2011. It was also pointed out with the charge sheet that he had worked only for 32 days in the year 2008 and had not worked in the year 2009 and 2010 respectively. 6. It transpires from the impugned Award as well as Annexure-3 that the workman was ill and he was being treated by Dr. S. K. Mondal. 7. It further transpires that one S. S. Singh was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 15.05.2012 and Presenting Officer was also appointed by the Management. 8. It transpires that notice of enquiry was issued to the respondent-Management dated 16.05.2012, Annexure-5 and which was also Exhibited as M-4 before the learned Tribunal. It also transpires that Enquiry Officer has observed vide order dated 16.05.2012 i.e. Vide Annexure-5 that one S. C. Choudhary will represent the Management in proceeding. 9. It also transpires that Annexure-6 dated 18.05.2012 contains also the dates of Enquiry Proceeding. It transpires from Annexure- 6 i.e. handwritten copy of the Enquiry Report and typed copy of the same has also been filed as Annexure-6 dated 18.05.2012 that the respondent-workman had appeared on 18.05.2012 before the Enquiry Officer as well as before the Management Representative and statement of the respondent-workman was recorded that “It is true that I was absenting from duty on 05.06.2011 to 15.05.2012. That I could not appear in the Enquiry Proceedings due to illness. Now I am fit for duty and request you to allow me to join duty and oblige.” 10. It also transpires that Enquiry stood concluded on 3 18.05.2012, which was marked as Ext.-M5 before the learned Tribunal. It further transpires that Enquiry Report dated 18.05.2012, has been marked as M6 before the learned Tribunal, which was submitted by the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 18.05.2012. 11. It further transpires that Enquiry Report reads as follows:-
Legal Reasoning
“Sri Anil Rajwar U.G.L./U. Men No.107245 of Lakhimata Colliery was absenting from duty from 5/6/11 to 15/5/12 and he was issued an enquiry notices after reply of CIS then after third notice he submitted application to conduct the enquiry proceeding and his case has been enquired and Sri Anil Rajwar participated the enquiry proceedings. During the course of enquiry he stated that he has fallen ill seriously, time to time, so he could appear in the proceedings in due time he submitted Out Door Fit Certificate of Dr.S K Mandal, MBBS, Nirsa 4/6/2011 to 12/11/2011 as fit on 18.11.2011. Thereafter he did not submit any paper / Medical. He did not submit any information of illness. Although his absence has caused dislocation of work. Findings Based on fact and circumstances and categorical submission of the management representative reports in couple corroboration don't leave any room of doubt and charges have been proved based on records.” It further transpires that vide letter dated 05.06.2012, 2nd 12. show cause notice was served upon the respondent-workman Anil Rajwar and he was directed to submit his reply only, which is marked as Exhibit M7 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.07.2012, the respondent has submitted the reply on the same date and requested the Management to allow him to join on duty, which is marked as Ext.-M-8 before the learned Tribunal. 13. Annexure-10 is the proposed punishment to the 4 respondent-workman and thereafter vide letter dated 13.06.2012 Senior Manager (PERS)/IC Mugma Area had terminated the Respondent-Workman from the service for remaining absent from 05.06.2011 for more than ten days i.e. about one year. 14. It is evident that Enquiry Report had not been served upon the respondent-workman. It further transpires that even the Enquiry Officer has travelled beyond its charge sheet on the one hand, by stating that he was absent from 05.06.2011 from the issuance of charge sheet and they had pointed out that he had not worked. However, by proposing the 2nd show cause notice dated 05.06.2012, the said proposed punishment of dismissal was not mentioned in the 2nd show cause notice at the time of issuance of final punishment order, rather the Disciplinary Authority of petitioner had merely indicated that stern action will be taken against the respondent-management in light of the Standing Order. 15. So far as the medical certificate is concerned, this Court finds that it was marked without any objection before the learned Tribunal and as such, the petitioner-company cannot be allowed to reagitate before this Court. 16. So far as question of limitation is concerned, this Court is of the view that once the matter is referred under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication and it was not challenged by the Management by filing writ petition, then he cannot be allowed to agitate the issue of reference after delay of five (5) years. 17. It further transpires that even the Enquiry Proceeding is in one page only and the Management had not adduced any evidence that he was absent for the year 2008, 2009 and 2010 and he was only worked for 32 days in the year 2008 and therefore the 5 Enquiry is complete harsh and ill motivated. 18. It further transpires that Enquiry Officer has no elementary knowledge to conduct an enquiry as neither any witnesses has been examined nor any documents have been marked as Exhibits and merely on the basis of statement of the respondent-workman recorded in three sentence, they had passed the order of dismissal of the respondent-workman from service. 19.
Decision
In view of the above, it is clear that the Management has conducted farce enquiry against the Respondent-Workman. 20. It is also evident that there is complete violation of principle of natural justice in conducting enquiry against the respondent-workman. This Court further finds that the notice was issued to the respondent-workman on 16.05.2012 and he had participated in the enquiry on 16.05.2012 itself and his statement was recorded. Thereafter, on 18.05.2012, the Enquiry Report was submitted on 18.05.2012, which has been marked as M-6 before the learned Tribunal, by the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 18.05.2012 and however, the copy of the Enquiry Report was not served upon the respondent –workman. 21. It further transpires from the 2nd show cause notice dated 0506.2012 filed on behalf of the Management that the workman was directed to submit reply on the basis of his show cause notice and it does not show the service of the Enquiry Report upon him and even the proposed punishment has not been mentioned in the 2nd show cause notice filed on behalf of the Management . 22. It has been held in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderbad Versus B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 at para- 61, 62 and 63 as follows:- “Para-61:- It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, 6 of to on the behalf justice. The inquiry conducted during fair and reasonable and negation thereof offends Articles 14 and 21. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post-mortem certificate with putrefying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural the contention Government/management that the report is not evidence adduced during such inquiry envisaged under proviso to Article 311(2) is also devoid of substance. It is settled law that the Evidence Act the has no application disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with the Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principles of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by ‘evidence’ in the proviso to Article 311(2) is the totality of the material collected during the inquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both. Para-62:- Shri P.P. Rao obviously realising this effect, contended that the enquiry officer being a delegate of the disciplinary authority is not bound by the delegatee's recommendations and it is not a material unless it is used by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the need for its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the inquiry. In support thereof on Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [(1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198] ; Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab [(1973) 1 SCC 680 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 293 : (1973) 3 SCR 637] ; Hira Nath Misra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi [(1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260] ; Satyavir Singh v. Union of India [(1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555] ; Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs v. K.S. Mahalingam [(1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] . I am unable to agree with his contentions. Doubtless that the enquiry officer is a delegate of the disciplinary authority, he conducts the inquiry into the misconduct and submits his report, but his findings or conclusions on the proof of charges and his recommendations on reliance placed strong he 7 to the penalty would create formidable impressions almost to be believed and acceptable unless they are controverted vehemently by the delinquent officer. At this stage non-supply of the copy of the delinquent would cause him grave the report prejudice. S.K. George case [(1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198] renders no assistance. It is only an inquiry against malpractice at an examination conducted by the University under executive instruction. Therein the students were given an opportunity of hearing and they were supplied with all the material, the foundation for the report. The observations of the Bench of two Judges with regard to the theory of two stages in the Inquiry under Article 311 also bears little importance for the foregoing consideration in this case. It is already seen that this Court held that the inquiry from the stage of charge-sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be split into in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of two. The reliance India [(1973) 1 SCC 380 : (1973) 3 SCR 22] is also of no avail. Therein it was pointed out that under Section 18-A of the I.D.R. Act there was no scope of enquiry at two stages and the omission to supply enquiry report, before taking the action, did not vitiate the ultimate decision taken. In Shadi Lal case [(1973) 1 SCC 680 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 293 : (1973) 3 SCR 637] Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules did not provide for the supply of copy of the report of an inquiry conducted by the fact finding authority before inquiry. It was held that the delinquent officer was supplied with all the materials and was given opportunity to make representation and the same was considered. The report did not indicate anything in addition to what was already supplied to him. Under those circumstances it was held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into an iron cast or a strait-jacket formula. Each case has to be considered and the principles applied in the light of the facts in each case. The effect of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts of the case on hand needs to be considered and visualised. The effect of Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] ratio was considered by my brother Sawant, J. and it needs no reiteration. The reliance on S.K. George case [(1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198] in Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] ratio renders no assistance in the light of the above discussion. Since Mahalingam case [(1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] which was after the Forty- second Amendment Act, the need to supply second show-cause notice was dispensed with, regarding punishment and therefore, that ratio renders no assistance to the case. Hira Nath Misra case [(1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260] also is of no avail since the inquiry was conducted relating to misbehaviour with the girl students by the erring boys. The security of the girls was of paramount consideration and therefore, the disclosure of the names of the girl students given in the report or their evidence would jeopardise their safety and so was withheld. Accordingly 8 effect on the discipline of this Court on the fact situation upheld the action of the Medical College. Satyavir Singh [(1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555] ratio also is of no assistance as the action was taken under proviso to Article 311(2) and Rule 199 of the CCA Rules. The inquiry into insubordination by police force was dispensed with as the offending acts of the police force would the generate deleterious service. Asthana case [(1988) 3 SCC 600 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 869] was considered by my brother Sawant, J. in which the report was not supplied and it was upheld. It should, thus be concluded that the supply of the copy of the enquiry report is an integral part of the penultimate stage of the inquiry before the disciplinary authority considers the material and the report on the proof of the charge and the nature of the punishment to be imposed. Non- compliance is denial of reasonable opportunity, violating Article 311(2) and unfair, unjust and illegal procedure offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. Para-63:- The emerging effect of our holding that the delinquent is entitled to the supply of the copy of the report would generate yearning for hearing before deciding on proof of charge or penalty which Forty-second Amendment Act had advisedly avoided. So while interpreting Article 311(2) or relevant rule the court/tribunal should make no attempt to bring on the rail by back track the opportunity of hearing as was portended by the Gujarat High Court. The attempt must be nailed squarely. Prior to the Forty-second Amendment Act the delinquent had no right of hearing before disciplinary authority either on proof of charge or penalty. So after Forty-second Amendment Act it would not be put on higher pedestal. The Gujarat High Court's decision is, therefore, not good law. However, the disciplinary authority has an objective duty and adjudicatory responsibility to consider and impose proper penalty consistent with the magnitude or the gravity of the misconduct. The statute or statutory rules gave graded power and authority to the disciplinary authority to impose either of the penalties enumerated in the relevant provisions. It is not necessarily the maximum or the minimum. Based on the facts, circumstances, the nature of imputation, the gravity of misconduct, the indelible effect or impact on the discipline or morale of the employees, the previous record or conduct of the delinquent and the severity to which the delinquent will be subjected to, may be some of the factors to be considered. They cannot be eulogised but could be visualised. Each case must be considered in the light of its own scenario. Therefore, a duty and responsibility has been cast on the disciplinary authority to weigh the pros and cons, consider the case and impose appropriate punishment. In a given case if the penalty was proved to be disproportionate or there is no case even to find the charges proved or the charges are based on no evidence, that would be for the court/the tribunal to consider on merits, not as court of appeal, but within its parameters of supervisory jurisdiction and 9 to give appropriate relief. But this would not be a ground to extend hearing at the stage of consideration by the disciplinary authority either on proof of the charge or on imposition of the penalty. I respectfully agree with my brother Sawant, J. in other respects in the draft judgment proposed by him.” 23. The judgment passed in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) has also been followed Union of India and Others Vrs. Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78, Para 33 and 35 as follows:- “Para 33:-In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide state of A.P. v. S.Sree Rama Rao.) Thus, where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Para 35:- In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjecture and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.” 24. It has been held in the case of Sanat Kumar Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2021 (2) JBCJ Page 485 (HC) at Para 9 and 10 as follows: “Para 9:- The Form is also prescribed of issuing major penalties. Annexure-3 speaks about the list of documents. Annexure-4 speaks about list of witnesses. On perusal of enquiry report, the Court finds that not a single witness has been examined for proving the charge against the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that even in departmental proceeding a document needs to be proved by way of adducing 10 evidence and a major punishment has been passed against the petitioner and Statutory Rule i.e. Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930 has not been followed. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 particularly para 14 and 15 which is quoted hereinbelow:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi- judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any 11 evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. Para-10:- The petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case and particularly by way of paragraph nos. 30, 40 and 78 of the said judgment, it transpires that the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case. A departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of criminal case. The departmental proceeding has not been conducted in terms of the Rule prescribed under Rule 55 of Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Patna High Court in the case of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar (supra)” 25. It has been held in the case of Rajendra Ram Vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors. reported in 2018 2 PLJR 10 at paragraph 7 & 8 as follows: “Para-7:-………………………………………….. …………………………………………………….. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that in a departmental proceeding for serious misconduct oral evidence was necessary. However, on going through the enquiry report, of course it was not required for this Court to examine it while exercising power of judicial review, but on going through the report it is evident that none of the witnesses were examined from the Department side to prove any charges against the petitioner. The issue regarding non-examination of witnesses in a departmental proceeding for serious charge has already been set at rest by a Bench of this Court in Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar case (supra). In the said case one of the main reasons for interference with the punishment order was that no witness was examined to prove charge against the delinquent. It would be better to quote paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar case (supra)…………… …………………………………………………………… this Court has already Para-8:- Similarly, incorporated paragraph no.9 of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar (supra) in this order. Nothing has been indicated as to what was the reason for non-examination of any witness to establish charge against the petitioner. In a departmental proceeding for serious charges particularly in view of Rule 55 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1930 it was mandatorily required to examine oral witness. In the present case in specific term the petitioner vide his letter no. 3855 dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure-“8” to the writ petition) had requested the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner to allow him to produce oral evidence besides submitting his supplementary written 12 the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner defence before however in prove of establishing charge no witness was examined in the proceeding. Accordingly, in view of non-prove of any charges by any of the witnesses on behalf of the Department, there was no occasion for holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner by the Conducting Officer and on this score alone the order of punishment is liable to be set aside. …………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………..” 26. It has been held in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors . Versus Amar Kumar Sinha passed in L.P.A. No. 212 of 2021 vide order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, at para- 8 and 9 as follows:- “Para-8:- In the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and another, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also examined a similar question and held that indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the documents. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the F.I.R. which could not have been treated as evidence. Para-9:- In the aforesaid reported judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also intervened in the matter. In the present case, it is seen that no witness was examined, only certain documents purported to be a report, prepared by the Chief Engineer, CDO, was produced before the enquiry officer, he accepted the same and passed the final order. The enquiry made by an officer of the 13 department, prior to the initiation of a departmental enquiry is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry. In such cases, a copy of the preliminary enquiry should be handed over to the petitioner and the evidence that led to preparation of the preliminary enquiry and the conclusion arrived thereon, has to be produced before the enquiring officer, who should apply his mind and come to the conclusion, whether such conclusion of the preliminary enquiry report is correct or not. While doing so, he should also afford a reasonable opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, produced before the enquiring officer to prove the charges and also allow him to pass rebuttal evidence. In this case, nothing has been done, thus, there has been a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 27. This Court finds that grave illegality has been committed by the Management Company by dismissing the respondent – workman from service and it is in complete violation of principle of natural justice. 28. It is further evident that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Award dated 11.10.2021 passed in Reference No. 23 of 2008 [Annexure-18] by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, then Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad answered in favour of their respondent-workman is correct and proper. 29. Hence, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the respondent-workman apart from the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. 30. Thus, this W. P. (L) No. 3479 of 2022 is dismissed. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 14