1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 325 of 2024 Indian Explosives Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Office at: "Tower 100", "The Spire" Unit No 0302, 3rd Floor, Plot no 4 Survey No 83/1, Raidurgam, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500032, through its Sr. Legal Counsel cum Authorised Signatory, namely, Sangeet Bakshi, aged about 49 years, son of Late A. P. Bakshi, resident of Flat No.: BG-4, Ramki One Kosmos, Tellapur, Hyderabad, Nallagandla, Telangana 500019, Ρ.Ο. & P.S. Lingampalli, District Ranga Reddy (Telangana). ………….Petitioner ……Versus……. 1. Ashok Kumar Sinha, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Baldeo Sinha, resident of House, No. 3, Road No. 5, Viveknagar, Chhotagovindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, State Jharkhand. 2. Shamik Basuray, aged about 53 years, son of Sri Prasanta Basuray, at present working as Area Business Manager-cum- Managing Director, Indian Explosives Private Limited, having its office at: A PJ House, Block-C, 6th Floor, 15, Park Street, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District Kolkata, PIN-700016, (West Bengal). 3. Rajesh Karna, aged about 41 years, son of Late Satyadeo Lal Das, at present working as HR Business Partner, Indian Explosives Private Limited, having its office at A PJ House, Block-C, 6th Floor, 15, Park Street, Kolkata, P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District Kolkata, PIN- 700016, (West Bengal). 4. Stuart Miller, aged about 46 years, son of Late Fredrick John Miller, at present working as Vice-President-Asia ORICA Limited having its office at 78, Shenton Way, 06-15/16/17, Tower 2, Singapore-079120. 5. Mr. Saptarshi Datta, Advocate, resident of 251, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Howrah, P.O. & P.S. Howrah, District Howrah, PIN-711102, (West Bengal). …... Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 2 --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Gupta, Advocate Mr. Nillohit Choubey, Advocate Miss Sanya Kumari, Advocate Miss Shruti Shekhar, Advocate For the O.P. No. 1:- Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ---- 07/15.01.2025 Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1. 2. Learned counsels for the petitioner and O.P. No.1 jointly submit that so far O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned they are proforma opposite parties as they are officers of Indian Explosive Pvt. Limited and they are made defendants in the suit as such this petition can be decided in absence of O.P. Nos. 2 to 5. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-III, Jamshedpur in Original (Title) Suit No. 26 of 2021 whereby the petitioners/defendants have been directed to produce documents relating to show-cause notice, written explanation of respondent/plaintiff, enquiry proceedings, statement of witnesses etc and final report as well as findings of enquiry officer. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Original Suit No. 26 of 2021 was instituted by O.P. 3 No.1 for declaration of dismissal/termination of the plaintiff’s services by the defendants vide termination letter dated 14.12.2020 as wrongful, illegal and arbitrary and further prayer was made for damages/compensation. He further submits that the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for furnishing documents by petitioner and pursuant to which the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 has been passed in the said suit. He further submits that plaintiff/respondent was employee of petitioner-company with effect from 19.07.1993 and his service was terminated on 14.12.2020 in accordance with the termination clause particularly Clause 20. He further submits that in the said suit an application under Order XI, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent. He submits that enquiry was started however, enquiry was not concluded and the termination order was not based on charge and simplictor termination and in view of the clause it has been done. He further submits that in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the plaint although stand was taken by the petitioner with regard to enquiry however the same has been denied in the written statement filed by the company at paragraph nos. 15 and 16. In this background he submits that those documents are not relevant to decide the suit inspite of that the learned court has passed the said order which is not legal and to buttress this argument he relied in the case of “Basanagouda Vs. Dr. S.B. Amarkhed and others” reported in (1992) 2 SCC 612. 4 He refers to para 7 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:- “7. The Court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to order the production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to any matter in question in the suit provided the court shall think right that the production of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The court also has been given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall appear just. Therefore, the power to order production of documents is coupled with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question. These are relevant consideration which the court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the election petition. At the same time the election petition proceedings being of quasi- criminal nature the allegations in the petition must be pleaded clearly and with full particulars, especially the grounds of corrupt practices cannot be permitted to be tried on the basis of deficient pleadings or by filing applications for production of record to fish out grounds as material which is not part of the pleadings. In any case secrecy of the ballot boxes cannot be tinkered unless an iron- cast case is made out in the election petition. Section 135-A which was brought on statute with effect from March 15, 1989 under Amendment Act 1 of 1989, prescribes booth-capturing to be an offence and the person com- mitting it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which may be extended to a maximum of two years and fine. Where such offence was committed by a person in the service of the Government, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and fine. Booth-capturing has been explained in its explanation thus: "For the purpose of this section 'booth-capturing' includes, among other things, all or any or the following activities, namely: (a) seizure of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons, making polling authorities sur- render the ballot papers or voting machines and doing of any other act which affects the orderly conduct of election; (b) taking possession of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll by any person or persons and allowing only his or their own supporters to exercise their right to vote and prevent others from voting; (c) threatening any elector and preventing him from going to the polling station or a place fixed for the poll to cast his vote; (d) seizure of a place for counting of votes by any person or persons, making the counting authorities surrender the ballot papers or voting machines and the doing of anything which affects the orderly counting of votes; (e) doing by any person in the service of Government, of all or any of the aforesaid activities of aiding or conniving at, any such activity in the furtherance of the prospects of the election of a candidate." 5 5. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that once the Court has to make up his mind that the said document is necessary to decide the question then that order can be passed but the impugned order has been passed ignoring this fact. 6. He further relied in the case of “Cimmco Ltd. V. Shyam Mohan Jain” reported in 1997 SCC Online Raj 6. He refers to para 9 of the said judgment and submits that expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question is required to be examined. He further submits that learned court ignoring this fact has passed the said order. He submits that only a preliminary enquiry was conducted and final report is not there and in view of that he submits that relevancy of that document has not been examined by the learned court. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 7. Per contra, Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submits that in the pleading in paragraph nos. 8, 9 and 10 are with regard to enquiry proceedings and certain documents have already been annexed and in view of pleadings pursuant to the said petition, learned court has passed the said order and the learned Court has even given cogent reason in passing the said order. He further draws the attention of the Court at para 15 of the written statement of the petitioner/defendant and submits that there is admission of conducting of enquiry. He 6 submits that in view of such admission itself those documents are relevant and in view of that learned court has rightly passed the order. He further submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the impugned order herein as well as plaint of the plaintiff/O.P.1 and the written statement of the petitioner. In para 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in virtual mode from 05.11.2020 to 08.12.2020 and one advocate was also appointed as a management representative on behalf of the company. The dates of enquiry also disclosed as 05.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 24.11.2020, 02.12.2020, 03.12.2020, 06.12.2020 and 08.12.2020. The witnesses have also been examined that is disclosed in that paragraph and certain document of the enquiry is also annexed. In para 9 it is disclosed that the O.P. No. 1 was being pressured to resign from the service. It is further stated that on 14.12.2020 at 9 A.M. the O.P. No.1 requested the company for voluntary retirement by email dated 14.12.2020 itself however, on the same day at 5.00 P.M. termination order was passed. The reply of para 7, 8, 9 of the plaint has been made by the defendant-petitioner in para 15 of the written statement wherein it is stated as under:- “15. That the averments made in Para No. 7 and 8 of the Plaint are incorrect. The inquiry conducted by the answering defendant was proper and in consonance with the policy decision of the company. The plaintiff has failed to understand that it is exclusive prerogative of the answering defendant to adopt mode and manner of redressal of any issue arising in the company for the growth and development of the company.” 7 9. In view of para 15 it is clear that enquiry was conducted however later on stand has been taken that enquiry was not conducted and the termination was simplicitor on the basis of Clause 20 of the promotion letter of the petitioner. 10. Thus, in para 15, there is admission of conducting of enquiry and whatever be the documents with the petitioner pleadings are there in para 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint and those documents are sought to be bring on record. It appears that those documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter involved in the pending suit particularly when the averments are there in the plaint. 11. The learned court has dealt with the arguments of both sides and thereafter came to the conclusion that only after enquiry was started thereafter the termination has taken place in the light of that he has passed the order to bring on record that document. Thus the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Basangouda” (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been taken care by the learned court and the learned court has considered the expediency, justness and relevancy of the said document which was sought to be brought on record by the learned court. Further, if any document is brought on record, that has to be proved by way of leading evidence by both sides. Leading evidence and cross examination that can be subject matter of the trial only. 8 12. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis no case of interference is made out and accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. However this order will not prejudice the case of either side in deciding the suit. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) Satyarthi/A.F.R.