Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Issue No. 1:

7. This issue has already been decided in favour of management and against claimant vide order dated 20.08.2015 by holding that the enquiry officer had followed the principles of natural justice and that there is no perversity in the enquiry report.

Issue No. 2:

8. Ld. ARW argued that the claimant has been terminated illegally as besides taking disciplinary action, the management had lodged a criminal case also against him on the same allegations vide FIR No. 26/88 U/s 411, 409 & 380 IPC in PS Adarsh Nagar. In that case, the claimant has been acquitted by Ld. MM vide judgment dated 18.10.2008. As the termination of the claimant has become illegal he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. In support, he relied upon:­ (i) GM Tank Vs. State of Gujrat Indian Kanoon­ http:/indian kanoon.org/doc/1212741,Capt.M. (ii) Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another Indian Kanoon­ http:/indian kanoon.org/doc/888207

9. On the other hand, Ld. ARM argued that acquittal in criminal case has no bearing in the domestic enquiry because standard of proof in domestic enquiry and criminal trial are totally different. In criminal case, the standard of proof is of beyond reasonable doubt whereas in domestic enquiry it is only of preponderance of probability. In support, he relied upon Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs M.G. Vittal Rao Manu/SC/1368/2011 also (2012)SCC442, Workman of Balmadies Estates vs Management Balmadies Estates and others (2008)6SCC517, Southeren Railway Officers Assn. And another vs Union Of India (2009)2SCC24, Ajit Kr.Nag vs G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Indian Kanoon­http:/indian kanoon.org/doc/1639372.