JUDGMENT
Ahmed Byrareddy, J.
Page 0210
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the rejection of the reference by the Labour Court.
2. The facts are as follows:
The petitioner was working as a semi-skilled workman under the respondent. The petitioner was suspended from work with effect from 30.11.1988 on the allegation that he had committed theft of property belonging to the respondent. It was alleged that the management having held. an enquired on the charge of theft, he was dismissed from service on 13.10.1989. The criminal proceedings which had been simultaneously launched resulting in a Criminal case was , on the other hand, dismissed by a Judgment dated 24.8.1991. The workman, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, had sought to raise a Page 0211 reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, having held that the enquiry was fair and proper, has examined the material on record and has held that the charge has been proved and accordingly, has rejected the reference It is, this order which IB under challenge.
2. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Arun M. Hangal. would submit that the significant circumstance that the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal case in respect of the very same act which was alleged, has been completely ignored by the Labour Court in holding that the act of misconduct alleged was established by the Management. The Labour Court, having held that the evidence on behalf of the respondent was adequate in establishing the charges, has failed in making a fair assessment of the evidence. Apart from the solitary evidence of MW-3, there was no other evidence let in, in support of the charges. Sri. Hangal, counsel for the petitioner would stress the fact that the miserable failure in establishing the alleged guilt of the petitioner at the criminal trial, has been completely overlooked by the Labour Court. He would further submit that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings having been launched simultaneously, it was prudent -that the disciplinary proceedings were stayed till the completion of the criminal trial. However, it is seen that the petitioner has been dismissed from service even before the Judgment in the criminal case by the Criminal Court. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner, vitiates the enquiry as laid down by the Supreme Court in a case . It is, on these grounds, the petitioner would submit that the order of dismissal and the award be quashed while directing reinstatement of the petitioner.
3. Per contra, Sri. P.S. Manjunath, appearing for the respondent would submit that the propositions of law sought to be urged are incorrect. The degree of proof required in a criminal trial and the degree of proof warranted in a domestic enquiry are not the same. The principles as regards the assessment., of evidence in respect of the charges in a criminal case and domestic enquiry are completely different. There is ample authority with regard to this proposition. Insofar as the simultaneous initiation of criminal proceedings and domestic enquiry are concerned, the law is settled on this point in the very Judgment cited by the petitioner wherein the broad parameters are spelt out. It is only if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on an identical charge of such a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law or fact, that it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the result of the criminal proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the present case, the facts though identical did not involve any complicated questions of law or fact and therefore, it could be safely said that there was no impropriety in taking recourse to the proceedings, simultaneously. The allegations against the workman were that on 30.11.88 at 6.30 am. fee was noticed by a security guard of the respondent and another workman, moving around suspiciously at the Page 0212 local bus stand with a bag. On enquiry they were told that he was carrying wheat powder, but on examination it was found that he was carrying about 12 kg. of gun metal, which had apparently been taken from the premises of the respondent. He was immediately taken, to the jurisdictional police station and a complaint was lodged. It was on the same charges that the domestic enquiry was also held. Hence, would submit that the findings being findings of fact would not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court.
4. On these rival contentions insofar as the question whether the acquittal in criminal case would entitle the delinquent to claim that he be absolved of charges in a domestic enquiry on the same set of facts and circumstances, there are a line of cases decided by various Courts and the unanimous opinion appears to be that the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and criminal trial are different. The technical rules of evidence and proof required to be beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case would not be applicable in respect of a domestic enquiry. In this regard reference may be made to the decided cases in Narayanakuty v. State of Kerala 1997 (3) LLW 635; M. Krishnan v. The Management of Terrace Estate 2000 LLR 402; Canara Bank v. Union of India (Ministry of Labour and Ors.) 1998 (2) LLJ 511; Durgapur chemicals Ltd. v. Ninth industrial Tribunal 2001 LLR 1225; Ishwari Prasad v. Reserve Bank of India 2002 LLR 140.
5. As regards the question when the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on identical set of facts and if an order of dismissal is passed even before the decision in criminal case, whether the departmental proceedings have to be set-aside, has been considered in the case cited by the petitioner and the entire case law has been reviewed in this regard. The said Judgment namely, M. Paul v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 Which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the facts were that a workman was accused of stealing property belonging to the employer. A criminal case was initiated. A charge sheet was simultaneously issued proposing a departmental enquiry. The workman had claimed that the departmental proceedings initiated against him may be dropped or postponed till the completion of the criminal proceedings against him. The representation was rejected, which was challenged before this Court in a Writ Petition. This Court had issued a direction to consider the representation of the workman while liberty was granted to the employer to defer the departmental proceedings if it was found expedient to do so. The employer did not defer the departmental proceedings and continued the proceedings. The workman did not attend those proceedings and the employer did not consider the request for staying the proceedings. In the result the workman was found guilty of the charges and was dismissed from service. Subsequently, the criminal Court rendered Judgment acquitting the workman of the charges. The workman having appealed against the order of dismissal, the appellate authority had rejected the same. Thereafter, the workman had filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the veracity of the order of dismissal on various grounds. Page 0213 The Writ Petition was allowed with a finding that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case based on the same set of facts, the departmental proceeding 3 should have been stayed till the result of the criminal case. That order which was challenged in appeal was set-aside by a Division Bench of this Court. An appeal was filed by the respondents and it was this appeal which was before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after review of the entire case law, held that the conclusions that would be deducible from the case law would be as follows:
22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are:
i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
ii) … If the departmental procawllnqs and the criminal case are based on identical and similar sat of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employees is of a grava nature which involves complicated questions of Law and fact, It would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal Case.
(Emphasis supplied)
iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be. given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so ass to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty/administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
6. Having regard to the state of law applied by the Supreme Court and with reference to the facts and circumstances of this case, I have no hesitation in holding that the Labour Court has not committed any error in affirming the findings of the departmental authority even though the criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry have proceeded simultaneously since there were no question of fact or law which were of such a grave nature warranting enquiry pending the decision in the criminal case.
Petition is dismissed accordingly.