- (1.) Aggrieved by award dated 26.07.2013 whereunder, termination of the respondent from service of CCL has been held illegal and not justified, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the respondentworkman was employed as permanent cook, categoryIII at Jarangdih Colliery. In the incident dated 30.09.1999 a chargememo was issued to respondent on 26.11.1999 alleging knowledge of the respondentworkman regarding occurrence of theft and the place where the stolen materials were concealed. A separate chargememo dated 13.12.1999 was also issued to the respondentworkman for not reporting at the company's headquarters, in terms of the Certified Standing Order. An enquiry was conducted in the matter and a copy of enquiry report was furnished to the respondentworkman along with second showcause notice dated 20.10.2000. After considering the enquiry report and the reply submitted by the respondentworkman the disciplinary authority vide, order dated 16.04.2001 inflicted punishment of "termination from the services of CCL". The respondentworkman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by award dated 26.07.2013, the present writ petition has been filed by Central Coalfields Limited.
(3.) Mr. A. K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper, the Industrial Tribunal cannot go beyond the findings recorded in the enquiry. It is submitted that, sufficient evidence was produced during the enquiry to prove the charges levelled against the respondentworkman and thus, without recording a finding that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse, no interference with the award of punishment is permissible. In so far as, chargememo dated 13.12.1999 against the respondentworkman is concerned, the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that the charges have been found proved still, the Industrial Tribunal has interfered with the order of punishment awarded to the respondentworkman. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision in State of Karnataka Vs. H. Nagraj, 1998 9 SCC 671, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; 2. "We fail to see how the Tribunal, when it upheld the enquiry could have interfered with the quantum of punishment in this fashion. As far back as in 1989, this Court in the case of Union of India v. Parma Nanda, 1989 2 SCC 177 (SCR at p. 30) held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with disciplinary matters and punishment cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the Competent Authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse." "It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority." 3. "The same view has been reiterated in a more recent decision of this Court in Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, 1997 7 SCC 463. This Court has held that the principle of proportionality can be invoked regarding punishment only in a case where the punishment was totally irrational in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. Such is not in the present case. Hence, the order of the Tribunal which is impugned before us is set aside and the order of the appellate authority is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed.";