Yogeshwar Prasad Shriwas v. Steel Authority Of India Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5700 of 2016 • Yogeshwar Prasad Shriwas S/o Shri Horilal Shriwas, Aged About 48 Years Occupation Service, Presently Working As Welder (Technician) At Hirri Mines, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur, R/o Village Hirri Mines, Hirri, Police Station Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Steel Authority Of India Limited A Central Government Organisation Public Sector Undertaking In India Having Its Corporate Office At Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

2. Bhilai Steel Plant, A Unit Of Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through Its Chairman- Cum- Managing Director, Bhilai, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Hirri Mines, Hirri, Under The Control Of Bhilai Steel Plant, Through Its Deputy General Manager, Hirri Mines, Hirri, Police Station Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Ram Kumar, S/o Bihari Lal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Service, Presently Working As Technician In Hirri Mines, R/o Village Banari, District Janjgir Champa, Presently Residing At Hirri Mines, Police Station Hirri, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/03/2017

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 had assaulted the petitioner in the official residential premises for which

an FIR was lodged against him and eventually he has been convicted under Sections 325 and 452 of the IPC in Criminal Case No.1269/2011. Despite the said criminal case amounting to misconduct, the employer has not initiated any departmental action against the said respondent, therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation and has also served legal notice on the respondent-Steel Authority of India, yet no action has been initiated.

2. In view of the fact that the petitioner being a complainant as also an employee of the same establishment where respondent No.4 is working and the misconduct qua the petitioner, ends of justice would be served if the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the employer of respondent No.4 to decide the petitioner's representation at the earliest, preferably within in a period of 3 months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

3. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve