Bisheshwar Soni v. Managing Director,Bhilai,Dt.Durgcg

,v Lf

IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

W.P.NO. 41-S-JS/2004 ^^'

PETITIONER .^:

^€< .\^"yy ^y.

^' ^.i?

y<^/ RESPONDENTS Biseshwar Soni S/o Shri Nilam Soni R/o Village - P.N.

11905 Rail & Sto^ictural Mill Bhilai Steffl Plant , Bhilai Dist.

Durg (C.G.)

VERSUS

1.

Managiag Director Bhilai Steel Plant Iqbal Bhawan ,.

Bhilai Dist. Diirg (C.G.) i5WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TIffi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

•.^.'

^s^ ,'/f^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Writ Petition No. 4155 of 2004 PETITIQNER Biseshwar Soni.

VERSUS

Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant.

RESPONDENT :

PETITION aNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Smt. Renu Kochar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the Respondent. ORD^E^ j(2|l|l£Q||)eGi||ige(;32014) .

1 .agTlTB P|stitibrier assails the order dated 23?06.fl998!&)r reduction of pay to yspe'minimum of lower gocte ,for a period of two y^j^,,with cummulative effect passed pursuantt^aiae^B-tmiental proceeding. The,;®hallengeto the same before the \SSlU SS@t and the Industrial Court have been ''C^iSStSSIi?

unsuccessful. The Petljign6r{wa§1proceededwith on two charges (a) theft of copper wire from the:3|ig >tlEigtCTiises (b) unauthorised absence. He was exonerated of the sec@nci®ha|'ge;^;L?

<lC«<iq vfV.v-1.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he was falsely implicated by the CISF personnel on duty while going out of the factory gate as he had a scuffle with them. He had not stolen any copper wire from the factory. He does not own a Luna moped but has a TVS moped. The departmental enquiry was not held fairly as he was denied opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. It was lastly submitted that he was forced to sign blank papers acknowledging his guilt. No police case was lodged with regard to the alleged theft committed by him. There was no independent seizure witness. The charge therefore could not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents opposing the application submitted that the two CISF constables who intercepted the Petitioner at the factory gate and recovered the copper wire from the tool box of his moped were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. Enquiry report manifests that the Petitioner cross-examined them also. The findings in the departmental proceedings are to be arrived at on preponderance of probabilities and the charges are Jiot to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need for institution of a regular criminal case before the punishment was imposed as the purpose of a criminal case and a departmental proceedings are entirely different.^,,, ,;„ ys »,s „; ,,, .4A|l-la!

\i|jng considered the submissions and tl%a|im(ted scope for judicial flaview against an orderciSPpynistiment in a departrrienlal^lproceeding, the Court does not fin8;lhafttK®]R^titjenerhas been able to demonstrate any procedural irregulari^|ii(jeg||dycs^f the departmental proceedings. Fairness in the departmental proge^fpgsijs evident from the exoneration granted to him on the second ch6irg8P!fffe?fwfit,CISF constables who intercepted him at the factory gate Ha^el^bSeni^xamined as PW-1 and PW-2 in the departmental proceecffii@S?TtT8<yilder of Enquiry Officer manifests that the Petitioner cross-examined them also. Three defence witnesses were also examined on behalf of the Petitioner. In a departmental proceeding, the charges need not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt but only on preponderance of probabilities.

In the present case, those who intercepted the Petitioner and recovered copper wire from him have been examined and cross-examined by the Petitioner also. The requirement for fairness in the departmental proceedings thus stood established.

5. The fact that no criminal case may have been instituted with regard to the

theft of copper wire is not relevant as the purpose of holding a departmental proceeding as an aspect of discipline in service and is enforced through appropriate orders of punishment is entirely different from a criminal prosecution where the conviction is ordered for misdemeanor and offence under penal law.

6.The Court finds no reason to interfere with the punishment order passed by the Respondent affirmed by the Courts below.

7. The writ applicationis dismissed.

Sd/- Acting Chief Justice Amjt 13'

ra <1C«<-!q uf^lrt -C7,