-1- 2025:CGHC:26332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 128 of 2014 Devendra Kumar Shukla S/oshri A.N. Shukla Aged About 53 Years C/o J.N. Shukla, Qtr. No. D/6, Subhash Block Korba P.S. Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. At Present R/o Village And Post Andhiyari P.S. Nawabganj, Distt. Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And Ors. S/o Through Its Chief Managing Director, Seepath Road, P.B. Bo. 60, Bilapsur Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Chief General Manager S.E.C.L. Rajgamar Area, Korba, District Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Deputy General Manager Secl Rajgamar Colliery, P.S. Rajgamar Distt. Korba C.G. , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/4/04 dated 05.08.2013 (Annexure P/1), whereby the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- decision taken by the Management with regard to the dismissal of the petitioner from services has been affirmed. 2) The matter was referred to the concerned Tribunal pursuant to the letter issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The reference was made to the learned Tribunal under Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/31/2003-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to: "Whether the action of the management of SECL, Rajgamar Colliery, Distt. Korba (CG) in dismissing the workman Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla, Electrical Fitter from the service w.e.f. 26-11-1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?" After receiving the reference, notices were issued to the parties. The 1st party workman filed the statement of claim. 3) The facts of the present case are as under:- A. The petitioner was working as an Electrical Fitter Cat-VI on a regular basis with respondents No. 2 and 3. One Fuldas was working as Under Manager at Bhelwadih Mines where the petitioner was working. On 31.01.1996, at about 2.45 pm, the petitioner left the duty without seeking any permission from the shift-in-charge. The Under Manager endorsed the remark to that effect in the Register and the matter was reported to the higher authorities. On 01.02.1996 in the first shift at about 8.15 am, the petitioner was discussing the remarks with Mr. B.B. Lal, -3- Superintendent Engineer. The petitioner, out of anger, assaulted Shri Fuldas and used filthy language. He sustained injuries. One Shri Ajay Singh, who was working as General Mazdoor also assaulted Shri Fuldas. Shri Man Bahadur, Mechanical Fitter, and Rupchand, Driller instigated the petitioner to commit the marpeet. At the time of the incident, A.K. Gupta, Senior Under Manager, and other officers were present. B. The incident was reported to the police. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the police and those documents are annexed with the record as Ex. M/3 to M/11. C. A general strike took place for 5 days from 02.02.1996 to 07.02.1996 and it was resolved after interference of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur, on 08.02.1996. D. Article of charge was issued to the workman on 01.02.1996 vide Ex. M/12. The petitioner filed his reply vide Ex. M/13. There were allegations that the petitioner misbehaved with co-workers and superior authorities, used to play cards, used to remain in an intoxicated condition, instigated his co-workers to commit the offence, assaulted the co-workers and superior authorities, and also threatened them. The act of the petitioner was in contravention of the standing orders No. 26.4, 26.12, 26.18, and -4- 26.22. E. The disciplinary authority appointed an inquiry officer and a presenting officer. The management examined its witnesses during the course of the domestic enquiry. F. The relevant documents were exhibited. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to examine his witnesses and cross- examine the management witnesses. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.11.1998 passed the order of dismissal from services against the petitioner. On the request of the petitioner, the matter was referred to the concerned tribunal according to the provisions of Section 10 of the ID Act. G. The learned Tribunal, after going through the enquiry report, the statements of the witnesses, and other documentary evidence, affirmed the decision taken by the management and decided the reference accordingly. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the learned Tribunal examined the independent witnesses during the course of the proceedings and it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 11(a) of the ID Act. He would further submit that on the date of the incident (01.02.1996), the petitioner was assaulted by the authorities of respondents No. 2 and 3 and a complaint was -5- made by the petitioner to the police station. He would also submit that on a complaint made by the management, cognizance was taken and a complaint under the provisions of Sections 107 and 116 of the CrPC was registered against the petitioner, but on the complaint of the petitioner, no action was taken. He would contend that the allegations regarding the assault are false. He would further contend that the petitioner was not afforded the sufficient opportunity in the domestic enquiry. It is also contended that no action was taken against the co-workers, who were involved in the incident for the reasons best known to the management. He would argue that the action has been taken against the petitioner alone and the punishment inflicted is disproportionate and harsh looking to the misconduct of the petitioner. Mr. Kale would also argue that the petitioner had put in 22 years of unblemished service and was a trade union leader, therefore, he was falsely implicated. The petitioner comes within the purview of a protected employee. In support of the submissions, he placed reliance on the matter of Rama Kant Misra v. the State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 1982 SC 1552). 5) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and consequently, a complaint was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 107 and 116 of the CrPC. He would further submit that article of charge was issued on 01.11.1996 and it was duly replied to by the petitioner. He would also submit -6- that the documents and a list of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and the enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed by the management. The petitioner was afforded the sufficient opportunity in the domestic enquiry. After a full-fledged inquiry, the penalty of the dismissal from services of the petitioner was passed by the disciplinary authority. He would argue that during the course of the proceedings, no witness was examined before the learned Tribunal. He would further argue that although the matter was set for evidence of the management witnesses, but no witness was examined, and this fact is evident from the order-sheet of the learned Tribunal. With regard to the false allegations, he would submit that the allegations were proved by witnesses before the management and that piece of evidence has been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. He would state that the management as well as statements recorded by the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C. proved the misconduct of the petitioner. He would further state that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7) From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that on 01.02.1996, the petitioner assaulted his superior authorities in the presence of other employees. Few co- workers assisted the petitioner in that incident. The matter was reported to the police and a complaint was registered. During the course of investigation, the -7- police recorded the statements of witnesses who supported the case of the management. 8) Article of charge was issued to the petitioner and it was duly replied to by the petitioner. The management provided the sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and witnesses were examined to prove the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded the sufficient opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and it was done by the petitioner. Enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer and thereafter, the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service. 9) The learned Tribunal placed reliance on the record and the statements of the witnesses examined by the management in the domestic enquiry. Therefore, the contention made by Mr. Kale that independent witnesses were examined by the management before the Tribunal appears to be misconceived. 10) The order-sheet of the learned Tribunal shows that although the case was set for evidence of the management witnesses but no witness could be examined as the post of the competent authority was vacant. 11) In the matter of Rama Kant Misra (supra), in para 8, it is held that the management could not prove that there was any blameworthy conduct of the workman during the 14 years of service and there were only allegations to the effect that he used indiscreet language and threatening posture. In that matter, -8- the Honble Supreme Court set aside the award passed by the Labour Court and passed an order of reinstatement with back wages and inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two increments. 12) In the present case, the petitioner assaulted his superior authority and used filthy language. The witnesses examined by the management during the course of enquiry proved the guilt of the petitioner. Though the petitioner put in 22 years of service with the management but it does not give him the license to assault his superior authority. A complaint was made against the petitioner and the matter was investigated by the police. The substance of the allegations made against the petitioner was found proved. Therefore, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the cited case. 13) The scope and power of judicial review of the Courts while dealing with the validity of the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was the subject matter of discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. S. Vasanthi [(2014) 9 SCC 315] wherein it was reiterated that the High Court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot assume the role of sitting as a departmental appellate authority as the same is not permissible under law. It shall be apt to reproduce paras 10 and 11 of the judgment which read thus:- "10.The scope and power of judicial review of the courts while dealing with the validity of quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is now well settled. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain (2013) 10 SCC 106, the law -9- on this subject, is recapitulated in the following manner: (SCC pp.110-12, paras 7-10) "7. When the charge is proved, as happened in the instance case, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of charge. The Disciplinary Authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. Host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist…. 11. We are of the opinion that the High Court transgressed its limits of judicial review by itself assuming the role of sitting as departmental appellate authority, which is not permissible in law. The principles discussed above have been summed up and summarized as follows in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank . v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 ( SCC p.382, , para 19):- "19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry, the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of of disciplinary/ departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent rt authority. 19.3 Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4 Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the -10- appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co- delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co- delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co- delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co- delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable." 14) From the above proposition of law, it is well settled that the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review cannot assume the role of sitting as a departmental appellate authority. The limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 15) The present is a case where the petitioner assaulted his superior authority. Though he was a trade union leader, it does not give him any authority to assault his superior authority or use filthy language. The petitioner could not establish that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing or the principle of natural justice has been violated. -11- 16) Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. 17) However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move a representation before the respondent authority claiming therein retiral dues and on such representation being made, the respondent authorities may consider such application strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim