M.M. Sundresh, J.@mdashThe Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 18203/1993
dated December 11, 2000 confirming the award passed in I.D. No. 81/1992 dated March 10, 1993 on the file of the second respondent-Labour
Court, Trichy, which in turn confirmed the order of dismissal passed against the appellant.
2. Charges have been framed against the appellant towards misappropriation of the funds of the first respondent and also for abusing the co-
employee while on suspension. Pursuant to the said charges, the appellant made his explanations on November 5, 1986 and March 27, 1987.
After consideration of the explanations given by the appellant, the first respondent rejected the same by ordering a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry
Officer found that the charges against the appellant have been proved and in pursuant to the same an order of dismissal was passed against the
appellant.
3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the appellant raised a dispute in I.D. No. 167/1990 before the Labour Court, Madurai and the same
was transferred as I.D. No. 81/1992 on the file of Labour Court, Thiruchirapalli viz., the second respondent herein, which went into the merits of
the case and after analysing the entire records as well as the oral evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the reference made by the appellant.
Not satisfied with the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 18203/1993 challenging the award of the Labour Court and for a further
direction seeking reinstatement with all attendant benefits.
4. Before the learned single Judge the learned counsel for the appellant raised a ground that the subsistence allowance during the period of
suspension was not paid to the appellant and therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated. It was also submitted that the appellant
having been acquitted honourably by the competent Criminal Court, the order of dismissal ought to have been set aside by the Labour Court. The
learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the contention regarding the non-payment of subsistence allowance was not
correct since; the payment have been made to the appellant by way of subsistence allowance and the same was received by the appellant by
stamped receipts. Regarding the other contention the learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the; competent Criminal Court has in fact
convicted the appellant and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed only on the technical ground since the occurrence has not happened in a
public place.
5. Mr. L.N. Praghasham, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the non-payment or subsistence allowance has prevented
the appellant from representing his case properly before the Enquiry Officer and'' therefore the enquiry proceedings are vitiated for the violation of
principles of natural justice. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be countenanced since the said plea has not been
taken before the Labour-Court and the appellant has not even made such a plea before the Disciplinary Authority during the pendency of the
enquiry proceedings. Further, the learned single Judge has also found that the subsistence allowance had in fact been paid and the appellant has
received the same without any protest. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the non-payment of subsistence
allowance cannot be accepted. It is also to be noted that even assuming that the subsistence allowance has not been paid during the pendency of
the proceedings, the same by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the disciplinary proceedings would be vitiated in the absence of any injury
shown by the appellant that he was prevented from making representation before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceedings due to the non-
payment of subsistence allowance. The prejudice caused in effectively defending the proceedings must be shown and established by affected
employee. Usual reference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of
M.M. Degree College and Others, .
6. Regarding the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been acquitted honourably by the
competent Criminal Court and therefore, in view of the said order of acquittal the order of dismissal will have to be set aside also cannot be
countenanced. As observed by the learned single Judge, the acquittal was only on the technical ground and not on merits. Further, it has been a
well established principle of law that an order passed by the Criminal Court will not bar the disciplinary authority from coming to an independent
conclusion. There will be no impact on disciplinary proceedings on the acquittal of delinquent in criminal trial. Usual reference can be had to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2005 III LLJ 1129 (SC).
7. Hence, on scrutiny of the above said facts we are of the opinion that there is no material produced by the appellant to interfere with the order
passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
