Case tittle | Debashis Mukherjee VS The Union of India |
court | Calcutta high court |
Honourable judge | Justice Lapita Banerji, J. |
Citation | 2023 (02) GSTPanacea 293 HC Calcutta WPA 190 Of 2023 |
Judgment date | 06-February-2023 |
An Affidavit of Service was filed in court today and has been retained with the official records. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, appeared before the court. He requested a stay on the departmental proceedings that were initiated against his client by two charge-sheets, dated June 7, 2022, and August 2, 2022.
The petitioner, who is employed as a Supervisor with Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), faces allegations of misconduct. The initial charge-sheet, issued on June 7, 2022, accuses the petitioner of misappropriation related to illegal coal mining activities. Following these allegations, the petitioner was suspended on July 23, 2022.
A subsequent charge-sheet was issued on August 2, 2022, leading to another suspension letter being sent to the petitioner on August 4, 2022. The counsel for the petitioner is seeking to halt these ongoing departmental proceedings against his client.
On this day, the affidavit of service was filed in court and retained with the records. Representing the petitioner, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel, requested a stay on the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who is employed as a Supervisor with Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL). These proceedings began with charge-sheets issued on June 7, 2022, and August 2, 2022, following allegations of misconduct involving misappropriation related to illegal coal mining. The petitioner was suspended on July 23, 2022, and received another suspension letter on August 4, 2022.
The court’s attention was drawn to a First Information Report (FIR) filed on November 27, 2020, which implicated the petitioner in criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, and criminal misconduct, alleging dishonest and fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to him.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondents/ECL, challenged the writ petition’s maintainability, arguing that the petitioner is not an ECL employee but a workman under the employer DCL, thus falling under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the court determined that the petitioner, who serves as a Supervisor and earns a salary exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month, does not qualify as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Additionally, Mr. Bhattacharya noted that criminal proceedings against the petitioner have not progressed as no charge-sheet has been filed despite the FIR lodged in November 2020. He referenced a 1991 judgment to support this point.
The case remains under consideration by the court, with a focus on the legal and procedural aspects of the charges and the maintainability of the writ petition.
In the affidavit filed in court today, it was stated that the Affidavit of Service is retained with the records. Mr. Mukherjee, the counsel representing the petitioner, appeared before the court and requested a stay on the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by charge-sheets dated June 7, 2022, and August 2, 2022. The petitioner, who is employed as a Supervisor with Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), was accused of misconduct, including misappropriation related to illegal coal mining, in the June 7, 2022 charge-sheet. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended on July 23, 2022, and was again charged on August 2, 2022, followed by a suspension letter on August 4, 2022.
The attention of the court was directed towards the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on November 27, 2020, where the petitioner was suspected of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, and criminal misconduct by a public servant due to dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property or other property under their control as a public servant.
Mr. Bhattacharya, representing the respondents/ECL, contested the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner is not an employee of ECL but rather a workman of the employer/DCL, falling under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the court determined that since the petitioner is engaged in supervisorial duties and receives a salary exceeding Rs.10,000 per month, they cannot be classified as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Mr. Bhattacharya further argued that criminal proceedings against the petitioner have not commenced, as no charge-sheet has been filed despite the FIR lodged in November 2020. He cited a precedent (Union of India & Ors. Vs. K. V. Janakiraman & Ors., 1991) to support the contention that criminal proceedings typically begin upon the filing of a charge-sheet. Therefore, he asserted that since no criminal proceedings are currently pending, the disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed by the court.
The court scheduled further consideration of the matter for February 21, 2023, under the same heading “Motion.” It was ordered that all parties should adhere to the server copies of the court order downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble Court.
Download PDF:
Debashis Mukherjee
For Reference Visit:
Calcutta High Court
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law