1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 20 of 2025 ----- Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager (Vigilance), Ramesh Chand Meena, aged about 47 years, Son of Sri Bhagata Ram Meena, working at Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, 6, Royd Street, P.S. Park Street, P.O. & District-Kolkata (West Bengal). … … Appellant Versus 1. Raymond Dung Dung, son of late Benedict Dung Dung, resident of Village Gadadharpatty, P.O. & P.S. Bagdogra, District-Darjeeling (West Bengal). 2. Ila Majumdar, wife of late Tapan Kumar Mazumdar, 3. Aveek Majumdar, Son of Late Tapan Kumar Mazumdar, 4. Ankita Majumdar, Daughter of Late Tapan Kumar Mazumdar, All permanent residents of 7/6, Naktala Lane, Kolkata- 47 (West Bengal), present address-House of Upender Prasad, Gali No.6, Professor Colony, Chiragora, P.S. Hirapur, P.O. & District-Dhanbad-826001. … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Adv For the Respondents : ------ 4/30.01.2025 This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 13.08.2020 in W.P.(L) No. 1596 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the award dated 25.09.2017 in Complaint No. 09 of 0215 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad. 3. The respondent one and the husband of the 2nd respondent had filed the said complaint before the said 2 tribunal challenging an order of removal from service passed on 29.04.2010. 4. It was their contention that they were posted at the Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office at Gaya since December, 2002 till the removal on 29.04.2010 and that their removal from service is an alteration in service condition during pendency of a Reference No. 138 of 97 as the appellant did not take permissions/approval of the tribunal before removing them from service as required under section 33 (1) and 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They contended that their removal from service is illegal in the eye of law and they are entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits from the date of punishment. 5. The appellant appeared and contested the matter before the tribunal. Evidence was adduced by both parties. 6. The appellant had contended in the tribunal that both the employees i.e. respondent no.1 and the husband of the respondent no.2 were responsible for shortages found in the place of storage of food grains during October 2002, but however admitted that the husband of respondent no.2 had been posted only for a short period. 7. The tribunal held, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, that the witness examined by the appellant though stated that the disciplinary enquiry held 3 against the employees was fair and proper, but during cross-examination he stated that the Depot-in-charge told him that he committed all the mischief, but subsequently he backed out; that he also admitted that concrete proof of shortage of food grains was not there; and moreover the witness himself was not there at the time of the occurrence. 8. Even before the tribunal the appellant had not examined any witness who was examined during the domestic enquiry nor did it file any listed document to prove the charges against the employees on merits. 9. The tribunal, therefore held that the employees were not guilty and on the contrary both employees had intimated over phone the District Manager about the shortage of the food grain, but no action was taken by the District Manager. 10. The tribunal, therefore set aside the order of removal from service imposed on the employees on 29.04.2010 and directed the appellant to reinstate the first respondent, and as regards the other employee, it directed that the salary and other allowances including post- retirement benefits from the date of removal be paid to the husband of the 2nd respondent till the date of superannuation on 31.12.2012. It also directed that the period of suspension as mentioned in the removal order in respect of both workmen shall be treated as having been 4 spent on duty for all purposes and they shall be paid the differential amount for the said period as well. 11. Challenging the same the appellant file W.P.(L) No. 1596 of 2018 before the learned Judge who dismissed the writ petition. 12. The learned Single Judge confirmed the findings of the tribunal and rejected the pleas of the appellant. He also recorded a finding that the Assistant Manager, District Manager and Regional Manager were left out by the appellant from disciplinary action, while the 1st respondent and the husband of the 2nd respondent, who were only workmen, had been punished that too for pointing out irregularities in the godown of the appellant. He also held that the award passed by the tribunal was fair and proper and no interference was warranted. 13. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the learned single judge as well as the tribunal had erred in granting relief to the 1st respondent and the husband of the 2nd respondent. Certain contentions based on the facts are raised in the pleadings and it is sought to be contended that both the employees could not have been exonerated by the tribunal on the mere ground that they had pointed out the irregularities committed in the godown of the appellant. 5 14. We do not agree with the said contention for the reason that the witness for the appellant was not able to prove the charge against the employees before the tribunal and the tribunal was therefore justified in granting relief to the employees. 15. Further, a contention was raised that since the alleged misconduct was committed in the State of Sikkim outside the State of Bihar the appellant was entitled to take disciplinary action without the approval of the tribunal, but the learned single judge has given cogent reasons why that plea also cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge held that though the occurrence had taken place in the State of Sikkim and the official Headquarters are in the State of West Bengal, both the employees were transferred to Bihar and had remained in Bihar for eight years till the punishment order was passed in the year 2010 and as such, they would be governed as per the law applicable in the State of Bihar. He held that the complaint filed by them was maintainable at CGIT, Dhanbad as they have been suspended in 2002 in the State of Bihar for the occurrence which had occurred in the State of Sikkim and even the departmental proceeding was conducted in the State of Sikkim instead of West Bengal to the detriment of the workmen and the 6 punishment order was passed against them while they were posted in the State of Bihar . 16. Counsel for the appellant also sought to contend that the letter informing about the irregularities had been written by the husband of the 2nd respondent, but the learned Single Judge had given the same benefit to the appellant as to the 1st respondent as well and this was not warranted. 17. Even so, since before the tribunal an opportunity to prove the charge was given to the appellant and its witness was unable to prove the charge against the 1st respondent, the findings of the Tribunal as confirmed by the learned single judge do not warrant any interference. 18. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to be paid by appellant to the 1st respondent and to the wife of the 2nd respondent within four weeks. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/Amardeep