2025:JHHC:32399 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3883 of 2021 ---- Ganga Sagar Rai, aged about 47 years, S/o Ishwar Dayal, resident of LCH 45, KB Gate, Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Mandu, District-Ramgarh. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Head Office at Darbhanga house, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S - Kotwali District- Ranchi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., PS – Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. General Manager (Personnell) Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House Ranchi, PO – G.P.O., P.S – Kotwali District- Ranchi. 4. General Manager, Kuju Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. – Kuju, P.S. – Mandu, District – Ramgarh. 5. Project Officer, Kuju Colliery, Kuju Area, Central Coalfields Limited, At- Kuju, P.O. – Kuju, P.S. – Mandu, District – Ramgarh. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Khushboo Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate ---- 12/ 08.10.2025 Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s), order(s), or direction (s) for quashing and setting aside the “Show- Cause" dt. 26.8.2020 issued by Respondent No. 5 being beyond jurisdiction and the "Dismissal Order" dt. 14.10.2020 having not been passed with due compliance of Clauses 28.1 and 28.6 of Certified Standing Order of M/s. CCL and further have been passed on erroneous consideration of the misconduct of "conviction involving moral turpitude" AND (b) For issuance of further appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents commanding/directing the to reinstate the petitioner in employment with back wages and consequential benefits arising thereof including continuity of service. AND/OR (c) For the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. AND/OR 2025:JHHC:32399 2 (d) as also for the issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the appellate dated 02.02.2024 which has been wrongly mentioned as 02.02.2023; whereby and whereunder the appeal/representation dated 11.8.2023 of the petitioner has been dismissed on account of the same being illegal and bad in law. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was in service as Survey Mazdoor Category II in employment of respondent- CCL at Kuju Project, Kuju Area. While in service, he was prosecuted in a criminal case being Complaint Case No. 130/2018, T.R. No. 883/2019 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Vide judgement/order dated 17.02.2020, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of two years with further punishment of fine of Rs.10 Lakhs, as compensation to the Complainant to be paid within six months and on failure of payment within the said period of six months, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. 3.1. On account of petitioner's conviction by the Trial Court in the said complaint case, he was proceeded departmentally under Certified Standing Orders of respondent - CCL under its "Misconduct" Clause 26.8 which reads as follows:- "26. ACTS OF MISCONDUCT The following shall denote misconduct: 26.1 … 26.8. Conviction in any court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude." 3.2. Petitioner was issued show cause notice vide letter No. CCL/PO/KC/Show Cause/2020/1545 dated 26.08.2020, to which petitioner submitted a reply on 03.09.2020. Respondents vide a letter No.CCL/PO/KC/DA/2020/1664 dated 14.10.2020 dismissed the petitioner 2025:JHHC:32399 3 from services with immediate effect as his conviction in criminal case was an admitted fact. 3.3. In the meantime, petitioner had challenged his conviction before this Court in Criminal Revision No.326 of 2023, wherein the conviction of the petitioner ultimately was set aside on account of compounding of offence vide order dated 04.05.2023. 3.4. In view of such acquittal, petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 vide letter No. 11.08.2023 and sought his reinstatement. The said departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide letter No.CCL/PD/Appeal/G.S Rai/2024/117 dated 02.02.2024 (sic) communicated vide letter No.CCL/PD-IR/Letter/G.S Rai/2024/129 dated 02.02.2024, observing that there is no infirmity in the order of dismissal imposed and the said penalty does not warrant any interference. It was observed that acquittal by the Appellate Court is not on the merits and was due to compounding of the offence made between the parties, thus the order of termination cannot be reversed. 4. Challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. The petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondents to reinstate him in employment with back wages and consequential benefits arising thereof including continuity of service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself and has been terminated without framing of charges, serving enquiry report or conducting a proper departmental proceeding under Certified Standing Order of Respondents- CCL. The counsel states that the conviction of petitioner was under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He contends that once the petitioner has been acquitted by the High Court, the order passed by the Disciplinary 2025:JHHC:32399 4 Authority and the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits. He has relied on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it has been held that the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act are basically civil in nature having criminal color and the same does not attract any moral turpitude. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the respondents after due consideration of the fact that the petitioner has already been convicted by a competent court of Law vide judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh in Complaint Case No.130/2018, has decided to departmentally proceed against the petitioner as per the rules of the Company. Learned counsel contended that since the proved misconduct is covered by the ambit of definition of “moral turpitude”, the Disciplinary Authority has passed dismissal order vide letter No. CCL/PO/KC/DA/2020/1664 dated 14.10.2020. He further contended that the Appellate Authority has also rightly dismissed the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner inasmuch the acquittal of the petitioner was not a clean acquittal on merits, rather the same was based on compounding. He lastly contended that the remedy available to the petitioner was to move before a Court/Forum as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for any relief, if at all he is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability as well. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, it transpires that there is no ouster of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this type of cases. It is admitted that the petitioner has been dismissed from service solely on the basis of his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. From the records, it 2025:JHHC:32399 5 also transpires that no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever was initiated before passing the order of dismissal. Petitioner has been dismissed from service citing the Certified Standing Orders wherein it has been provided that an employee can be dismissed if he has been convicted, without even a Disciplinary Proceeding. Now, admittedly, the judgment of conviction as well as the order of sentence have been set aside and since the departmental appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Keeping in view that this matter is pending since 2021 before this Court, and also there is no complicated question of facts which needs adducing evidence, it will not be proper for this Court to relegate the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal, where it will consume further time. 8. The order passed by the Appellate Authority, admittedly, suffers from perversity inasmuch as the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been acquitted by this Court thus the very basis of his dismissal from service does not survive. The reasoning given by the Appellate Authority that the Negotiable Instruments Act definitely attracts moral turpitude as it is an act amounting to cheating punishable under the Indian Penal Code does not sounds good in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been held time and again that offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act are in the nature of civil wrong which are given criminal overtones and such offence cannot be brought under the ambit of offence involving “moral turpitude”. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaushalya Devi Massand versus Roopkishore Khore reported in (2011) 4 SCC 593, at paragraph 11 thereof has held as under: - “11. The gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal 2025:JHHC:32399 6 offences. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones.” 9.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Mohanraj and Others versus Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 152 at paragraph 43 thereof has observed as under:- “43. Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases, as has been seen by us in the analysis made hereinabove of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act.” 10. Further reasoning by the Appellate Authority that the acquittal by the Appellate Court is not on the merits and due to compounding of the offence made between the parties also does not pass the test of statutes. The Appellate Authority failed to consider that compounding of the offences under Negotiable Instruments Act is provided under Section 147 of the Act, which reads as under: - “147. Offences to be compoundable.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” 10.1. Further, Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that compounding of offence shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused. Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: - “320. Compounding of offences. (1) … (8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.” 11. The aforesaid provision of Cr.P.C. can be applied here. On a conjoint reading of above provisions, it is clear that the composition of offence amounts to acquittal of the petitioner in this case, where the offence has been compounded. 2025:JHHC:32399 7 12. The acquittal of the petitioner is to be treated as clean acquittal. Further since the conviction has been wiped out, the punishment by the employer also should be set aside. On overall consideration of the facts of the case and the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the provisions of law as discussed hereinbefore, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The order dated 02.02.2024 (sic) passed by the Appellate Authority as also the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority are hereby set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to be reinstated in services but without back wages as admittedly there was a conviction in a criminal case, which cannot be attributed to the employee. The period, which the petitioner was out of service will be reckoned for the purposes of service and retiral benefits. The benefit of continuity of service should be given to the petitioner. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is not reinstated within the said timeframe, he is entitled for the wages from the date of this order. 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 08th October, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 AFR