SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD., DHANBAD
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-157
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on April 12,2013

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA Appellant
VERSUS
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents on record.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the year 1970 and he was posted at Ghanudih Colliery. An F.I.R. under Sections 420/471/120B I.P.C. and under Section 5(i)(d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioner, while he was posted at Ghanudih. By judgment and order dated 07.03.1998, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 120B I.P.C. and he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 5(i)(d) r/w Section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 92 of 1998 before the High Court and by order dated 29.07.1998, he was ordered to be released on bail. On 25.08.2003, a showcause notice was issued to the petitioner by Respondent No. 3 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 30.08.2003 requesting the authorities not to initiate disciplinary action against him during the pendency of the Cr. Appeal before the High Court. However, Respondent No. 2 passed order of dismissal from service on 19.09.2003 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking a stand that merely because the Cr. Appeal was admitted by the High Court, the authorities were not precluded from initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner. In view of the conviction of the petitioner in the Cr. Appeal, the respondentCompany invoked the provision of certified standing order and in exercise of power conferred under certified standing order, the order of removal from service of the petitioner has been passed by the respondentCompany. For these reasons, the order of dismissal does not require any interference by this Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.