1 2025:CGHC:47883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 159 of 2023 1 - Bhagat Ram S/o Late Millu Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Dhakamura, Post Maharajganj, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Sub-Area Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Rajgamar Colony, Post Office- Rajgamar Colliery, District Korba Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As District Bilaspur ) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri R.S.Baghel, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief - 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and set aside / quash the impugned award dated 29/09/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed in No. CGIT/LC/R/175./89 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (CG) in the interest of justice. 2 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and direct the respondent authority to pay the back wages, consequential benefits along with other retiral dues to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (CG) in the interest of justice. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts which emerges from the writ petition are that the petitioner on 04/06/1973 was initially appointed as Loader at incline No.4 and 5 at Raigamar colliery, District – Bilaspur, CG. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner inter alia alleging that the petitioner on 01/03/1986 at about 4.25 PM with the help of laathi and other weapons in a violent mood tried to assault one Shri A.C.Roy Burmen, Manager at number 4 and 5 of incline of Rajgamar colliery, District– Bilaspur, CG who was supervising the work of repairing of pump at colliery workshop. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and after completion of the departmental enquiry, charges against the petitioner was proved and he was imposed with a punishment of termination from service which was challenged by him under reference before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur which was registered as CGIT /LC/R/175/1989. By the impugned award 29/09/2021, the said reference was rejected by the Tribunal and it was held that the action of the management of Sub Area Manager, Rajgamar colliery of M/s. SECL Bilaspur dismissing the petitioner from service is held to be justified in law and it was also held that the workman is held entitled to no relief. This is how this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was conducted dehors the rules and regulations in this regard and he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Learned CGIT did not consider this aspect of the matter and erroneously passed the award rejecting the reference. The allegation against the petitioner is only with regard to trying to assault the superior, therefore, one more opportunity ought to have been granted and looking 3 to their action, the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the above submission and submits that no papers of the departmental enquiry have been filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to defend himself. Apart from this, it is submitted that the learned CGIT has dealt with the matter in great detail and framed issues in this regard and dismissed the reference. Therefore, this Court would not sit as an appellate authority to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the material on record and submission made therein, it cannot be disputed that the allegation against the petitioner was that he tried to assault the superiors with the help of weapons. No papers of departmental enquiry was filed by the petitioner neither charge sheet has been filed. However, perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned CGIT framed issue No.1 whether the charge is proved on the basis of enquiry recorded, which on detailed assessment found to be positive against the respondent. The second issue framed is whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge. That issue was also found decided against the petitioner. Learned CGIT relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Joseph Solomon v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Dehradun and anr. 2012 (134) FLR 424, B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, DG, RPF v. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364, Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) & SCC 257, State of Meghalaya v. Meeken Singh N.Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 and Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulbhia M.Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101. 7. The law is well settled that the High Court would not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence in the departmental enquiry until and unless the evidence appears to be absolutely perverse. From the impugned award, it does not appear that the submission made by the petitioner was not considered 4 and also gave a categorical finding in accordance with law and the punishment was not disproportionate to the charge. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.24 12:07:15 +0530