CGIT Jabalpur Award passed in R/35/2018 dated 01.09.2026 in Salil Kumari vs Bhilai Steel Plant on 1 September 2026

1. The Managing Director, M/s Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District – Durg (Chhattisgarh) – 490001

2. The Mines Manager, M/s Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant, Nandini, District – Durg (Chhattisgarh) – 490036

Management AWARD

(Passed on this 01st day of September, 2026)

As per letter dated 27.07.2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) as per Notification No. L-29012/19/2011- IR(M) dated 27.07.2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the dismissal of the Late. Sh. M.P. Singh Vide order dated 25.07.1996 based on Departmental enquiry of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg (CG) which alleged to be initiated on the basis of CBI case initiated on the complain dated 06.07.1994 of Sh. N. Chenniaya is legal, justified and

proper in the view of the CBI Court’s closure report dated 03.07.2006?

If not, what reliefs the legal heirs are entitled to and what directions are necessary in this regard in view of their representation dated nil received in the office of Conciliation Officer on 07.07.2010?” The case of the petitioner is mainly that her husband, now deceased at the time of the reference, was appointed in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai in the year 1961 as Lower Division Clerk. He was transferred to Nandini Mines and was promoted during course of time. His last promotion was for the post of Section Officer on 27.12.1993. He was served a charge sheet dated 10.01.1995 alleging major misconduct, which he replied vide his reply dated 16.01.1995. He was dismissed by Management with reference to charge of misconduct referred against him after a Departmental Enquiry vide order of Management dated 25.07.1996. Charge against him was that he asked illegal gratification in nature of bribe from the complainant in return to some favor to him. The complainant worker made a complaint with Central Bureau of Investigation. A trap was laid and he was caught red handed by the raid party while accepting bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant workman. A First Information Report was registered by C.B.I. and after investigation, final report dated 11.06.1999 was submitted in this matter and the proceedings were dropped. The final report was accepted by the Court. It is further the case of the petitioner that enquiry against her husband was not conducted within stipulated period and he remained suspended. No show cause notice of the alleged misconduct was issued prior to the charge sheet. The charge sheet was not properly explained. The charge sheet was issued on the basis of Criminal case, which resulted into final report. No documents with respect to the alleged misconduct were submitted to him. Principles of natural justice were also not followed and adequate opportunity was also not given to her husband to defend

his case. Witnesses were cross examined behind the back of the deceased workman and no show cause notice was issued period to imposition of punishment. According to the petitioner, the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse and faulty. Particularly, when no case was found against him after investigation of CBI, hence the punishment order was also not legal and unjust. The workman first filed a case before Labour Court in Durg, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.1996, affirmed by Industrial Court on 13.02.1998. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court, which she withdrew with liberty to seek remedy before proper forum on 22.03.2010. The petitioner has prayed that setting aside termination of her deceased husband vide order dated 15.07.1996, he be treated to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits till the date of his superannuation/death, whichever is earlier. Case of the Management is mainly that the Departmental Enquiry was conducted following rules of procedures and also following principles of natural justice. The Deceased workman did participate in the enquiry and was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Charges were found proved in the enquiry which was rightly concurred by the Disciplinary Authority. The Punishment is also not disproportionate to the charges proved. It is further the case of Management that after the enquiry and punishment, the investigation concluded and final report was filed by CBI on the ground that there was no prosecutable evidence against the deceased workman. The CBI recommended major departmental proceedings against the Workman. After submission of the final report, the workman also died hence in these circumstances the final report was accepted. Thus, the workman could not be benefited from the acceptance of final report in the case in hand. Management has requested that the reference be answered against the petitioner.

It is further to be mentioned here that the petitioner also died during the pendency of the case, she was thereafter represented by her son, legal representative. Following preliminary issue was framed which is as follows -

1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper? After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, this issue was decided vide order dated 15.09.2025, the departmental enquiry was held just, legal and proper. This order is part of this judgment.

Following additional issues were framed thereafter –

1. Whether, the findings of the Enquiry Officer and concurrence of the Disciplinary Authority that the charges were proved is perverse?

2. Whether the punishment awarded is excessive to the charge? Parties were given opportunity of evidences on additional issues. The petitioner side filed the documents in form of FIR, final report and order of concerned Court accepting the Final Report. I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sudeep Jouhari and Mr. R.C. Shrivastava Learned Counsel for the Management.

The earlier Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shantanu Seth did filed written submissions which are part of record. I have gone through the written submission as well the records. Additional issue No.1 –

Charge against the workman is that, while working as a Section Officer in Personnel Section, Nandini Mines of Bhilai Steel Plant, he committed a gross misconduct on 05.07.1994 and 06.07.1994 in which he demanded and was caught red

handed while taking and accepting the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the one Shri N. Chinnaiya Senior Operator (Drummer) Nandini Mines, Bhilai in presence of independent witnesses for getting revoked four days suspension of the complainant and processing the said file expeditiously thus committed an act of misconduct under the relevant Rules of the company. A perusal of the enquiry papers reveals that this charge was supported by the complainant and the witnesses who were cross examined during the enquiry.

Main submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the same charge, the same witness and same complainant were in the Criminal Case also against the workman, in which final report was accepted by the Court, which was submitted by the Investigating agency i.e. the CBI after investigation. Hence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer could not be held to be just and legal.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that the standard of prove with respect to the charges in Criminal Trial and Departmental Enquiry are different. Secondly, the witness supported the charges during the enquiry. The final report was submitted after the workman was dismissed from service by way of punishment, hence in these circumstances, the filing of final report or its acceptance by Court will be of no hail to the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submits that at the time when the Court accepted the final report, the workman had died, hence naturally the case was to be abated. The enquiry itself discloses that there was no prosecutable evidence found against the Workman and major departmental action was recommended by the CBI itself, which is evident from the final report itself.

The settled preposition of law with respect to prove of charges in a Departmental Enquiry crystallized through various decisions, which is as follows – Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255 Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10, 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para

In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi)

State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 (vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously." In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule relating to

appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case. "

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the exoneration part of the CBI was required to be taken into consideration by the Department. He has referred to Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 1-G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446 and 2- Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2024) 1 SCC 175 Para 12 and 30 of this judgment is being reproduced as follows – “12. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different

dimension. If the Court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts.” “30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive." Hence, the fact of filing a final report of the Investigating Officer on the ground of non-availability of sufficient prosecutable evidence against the deceased workman and its acceptance by the concerned Court will have no effect on the legality of findings of the Enquiry Officer with respect to proof of charges as mentioned above and its concurrence by the Disciplinary Authority.

Hence, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer and its concurrence by the Disciplinary Authority just and lawful, the Additional Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 2 –

Main submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since final report was submitted and was accepted by the concerned Court, hence the maximum punishment of dismissal will not be justified.

Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that the final report was filed after the order of dismissal of the service of workman was already passed by Management on the basis of

Departmental Enquiry against him. Learned Counsel further submits that charges were found proved against the deceased workman which was about the integrity of the deceased Workman which is basic to every employment, warranting the punishment of dismissal from service. Learned Counsel also submits that such a punishment on such type of charges cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to shock the conscience of this Tribunal.

Following Judgments have been relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this respect.

1. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749. "The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to 'shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

2. D.G. RPF Vs. Sal Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331. “6. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of discipline required to maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned works." In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon’ble Apex Court on review of a long line of cases and the principles

of judicial review of administrative action under English law summarized the legal position in the following words: “11. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrators’ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.

12. To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.” In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal position as follows: “8. ……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.” In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that: “The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. Hon’ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that “The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court or a

Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts. This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587

7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S)

and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that: “Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.”

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 3645 Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that: “Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.” Now, coming on the facts of the case in hand, the workman caught red handed while asking and accepting bribe from a co- worker. This charge was even proved against him in a Departmental Enquiry. The charge proved is an act of moral turpitude. Honesty and integrity are basic for an employee. These two traits are not negotiable. No employer can afford to continue an employee who is dishonest or who lacks integrity. Hence, by any corner, punishment cannot be held to be so shockingly disproportionate to warrant interference by this Tribunal. Hence, holding the punishment in the case in hand not disproportionate to the charges proved, Additional Issue No.2 is answered accordingly. No other point was pressed. On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is being answered as follows.

AWARD Holding the dismissal of the Late. Sh. M.P. Singh Vide order dated 25.07.1996 based on Departmental enquiry of Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg (CG) which alleged to be initiated on the basis of CBI case initiated on the complain dated 06.07.1994 of Sh. N. Chenniaya in the view of the CBI Court’s closure report dated 03.07.2006 just, legal and proper, the legal heirs of the deceased workman are held entitled to no relief.

No order as to cost. DATE:-01/09/2026

(P.K.SRIVASTAVA)

PRESIDING OFFICER