Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22194 of 2012 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Bholeshwar Mahabhoi …. Petitioner(s) Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., Sambalpur & Ors. -versus- …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. K. Sarangi, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. A. K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-26.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -06.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a directive from this Court to the Opposite Parties to reinstate him from the date of his original dismissal, disburse his salary from March 2009 onwards, and nullify the agreement dated 21.08.2014 and the related dismissal order, treating him as having been in continuous service since his dismissal. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 (i) On 10.09.2004, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for signing petrol slips to gain pecuniary benefits from March 2003 to August 2003 for vehicles attached to CMD Directors and other officials of MCE Headquarters (ii) A detailed enquiry found the petitioner guilty, leading to dismissal on 02.03.2009. The CBI initiated a criminal proceeding against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (iii) Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No.5110 of 2006 before this Court, seeking directions to supply relevant documents for the departmental proceedings. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned higher authorities. (iv) The departmental inquiry was closed on 20.06.2008, and a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.01.2009. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.03.2009. (v) Concurrently, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.2266 of 2009, in which this Court directed the appellate authority to hear his appeal. (vi) The appellate authority remitted the case of the petitioner for de novo inquiry on 01.10.2011. Following that, the Enquiry Officer (EO) and Presenting Officer (PO) were appointed. (vii) On 09.08.2012, the petitioner was acquitted by the CBI Court as the prosecution failed to prove the case. Following this order, the petitioner filed multiple representations for reinstatement, which were rejected. Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 (viii) On 21.08.2014, the petitioner entered into a settlement under Rule-58 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rule, 1957. The petitioner accepted the terms, which included no claim for back wages or incremental benefits from the date of dismissal to reinstatement, and treating the period as DIES-NONE (not counted for service). Consequently, an order for the petitioner’s reinstatement was passed. (ix) Subsequently, on 18.07.2019, through an amended Writ Petition, the petitioner requests this Court to direct the opposite parties to reinstate him from his original dismissal date, disburse his salary from March 2009, and quash the agreement made on 21.08.2014 and related dismissal order, treating him as continuing in service since his dismissal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner submitted that he should be treated as continuing in service from the dismissal date of 01.03.2009. Accordingly, he seeks salary disbursement from 01.03.2009 onwards. (ii) He further submitted that the inquiry was improperly conducted and the penalty of dismissal was unjust and quite disproportionate. (iii) The petitioner contended that he should be deemed to have continued in service following the appellate authority’s order for de novo inquiry. Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 (iv) He further contended that the alleged agreement dated 21.08.2014 is not binding as it was made under duress and is detrimental to his rights. (v) The Petitioner requests reinstatement with effect from the dismissal date and disbursement of back wages and other benefits. He also claims entitlement to 18% interest on unpaid back wages and costs. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) It is submitted that the Petitioner is attempting to nullify the memorandum of settlement (Form-H) made under Rule-58 after almost five years since his retirement, which is contrary to the statute and legally impermissible. (ii) It is further submitted that the domestic inquiry is different from a criminal trial. Even if acquitted in a criminal court, the departmental authority can still continue the enquiry based on misconduct under statutory rules. The standard of proof is different and lower in (iii) (iv) departmental proceedings. It is contended that the Petitioner is legally estopped from seeking alteration or nullification of the memorandum of settlement, as he was reinstated based on it. It is further contended that the spirit and sanctity of Rule-58 of The Industrial Dispute (Central) Rule, 1957, must be upheld, and the court should not interfere at this belated stage. The demand for back wages is unfounded since the Petitioner did not work during that period, Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 and there was no judicial intervention deeming the dismissal as bad. Based on the above grounds, the Learned Counsel for Opposite
Decision
Parties requests for dismissal of the Writ Petition. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Having heard the Learned Counsels representing both the parties and meticulously perused the materials submitted to this Court, it is evident from the outset that the departmental inquiry and subsequent proceedings against the Petitioner were initiated independently. These proceedings were based on allegations of the Petitioner’s involvement in the unauthorized signing of petrol slips for personal pecuniary gain. 6. This Court now grapples with the pivotal question of whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner should be annulled in the light of his acquittal by the CBI. Similar issue has been comprehensively addressed by the Apex Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yusuf Miya and Ors1., wherein it was held in paragraph 7 which is as follows: “7…There is yet another reason. The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Penal Code, 1860, if any) are the question is whether 1 (1997) 2 SCC 699. Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be a matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed.” 7. From the abovementioned judgment, it is clear that the inquiry in a departmental proceeding pertains to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent employee and aims to penalize him for misconduct as defined under the relevant statutory rules or laws. It is a well- established legal principle that the strict standard of proof or the applicability of the Evidence Act does not apply in such proceedings. Consequently, the Petitioner’s argument fails to withstand scrutiny. 8. A review of the aforementioned facts clearly indicates that the Petitioner’s reinstatement was based on the Memorandum of Settlement under Rule-58 of The Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957. According to this settlement, the Petitioner was reinstated under specific terms and conditions, including the waiver of any claims for back wages or incremental benefits from the date of dismissal to reinstatement, with the period being treated as DIES-NONE (not counted for service). 9. Now, the Petitioner contends that the settlement was made under duress and should be nullified. It is crucial to recognize that the fairness or validity of a settlement between parties cannot be assessed without a thorough understanding of the factual context in which it Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2024 19:48:03 was executed. Consequently, this Court, in the absence of substantial evidence, cannot adjudicate on the legitimacy of the Memorandum of Settlement in an abstract manner. 10. The Apex Court dealt with a similar issue in the case of Mayurakshi Cotton Mills and Others v. Panchra Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Employees’ Union and Others2. In the said Writ Petition before the High Court, the workers’ union contested the validity of settlement claiming to be unfair. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper avenue for resolving this issue was through raising an Industrial Dispute, not via a Writ Petition. The High Court’s single judge directed the parties to seek remedy through Industrial Dispute procedures, but the Division Bench overturned the settlement on appeal. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal and reaffirmed that the suitable remedy was to raise an Industrial Dispute. 11. Consequently, this Court concurs with the established legal precedent, determining that the Petitioner is precluded from raising the aforementioned issue under Article 226 without first resorting to the appropriate forum. Hence, the Petitioner must initially seek redress through the designated channels before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is rejected and disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th Sept., 2024/ 2 AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1206. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 7 of 7