kusheshwar dubey vs bharat coking coal ltd & ors

8/18/2019 Kusheshwar Dubey vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Ors.

1/7

Kusheshwar Dubeyvs Bharat CokingCoal Ltd. & Ors

1988 A! "118


2/7

#a$ts

%he aellant is an e'loyee in the Balihari Colliery o(the !esondent )o.1. *e was working as an ele$tri$al

heler.

n 198+ he was alleged (or hysi$ally assaulting asuervising o,$er- (or whi$h he was sube$ted to bothdis$ilinary ro$eedings and a $ri'inal rose$ution.

%he aellant /led a $ivil a$tion asking (or inun$tion

against the dis$ilinary a$tion ending $ri'inal trial-0in$e both the dis$ilinary ro$eedings and $ri'inaltrial were taken si'ultaneously.


3/7

%he trail $ourt 'ade an order staying (urther ro$eedingsin the dis$ilinary a$tion till disosal o( the $ri'inal $ase.

%he !esondent )o. aealed against the order and the

aeal was dis'issed by the aellate $ourt.

%hereuon the resondent )o.1 'oved the high $ourt inits revisional urisdi$tion.

%he high $ourt allowed the revision ali$ation and set

aside the i'ugned order on the ground that there is nobar (or an e'loyer to ro$eed with the deart'entalro$eeding with regard to the sa'e allegation (or whi$h a$ri'inal $ase is ending.


4/7

Contentions in the 0L

%he aellant $ontends that2

1. %he legal osition settled by this $ourt suorted thestand that the dis$ilinary a$tion had to be stayed till the

$ri'inal $ase was over.

". %hat there are also authorities in suort o( theosition that there is nothing wrong in arallelro$eedings being taken3 one by way o( the dis$ilinary

ro$eeding and the other in the $ri'inal $ourt. 4. %hat the $ourt should settle the law in a straight a$ket

(or'ula as udi$ial oinion aear to be $on5i$ting.


5/7

ssue

6hether there should or should not besi'ultaneity o( the ro$eedings 7$ri'inal trialand dis$ilinary ro$eedings


6/7

!easoning

Court held that while there $ould be no legal bar (or si'ultaneousro$eedings being taken- yet- there 'ay be $ases where it would bearoriate to de(er dis$ilinary ro$eedings awaiting disosal o( the$ri'inal $ase. And that in the latter $lass o( $ases it would be oen tothe delin:uent e'loyee to seek su$h an order o( stay or inun$tion(ro' the $ourt.

#urther stated that whether- in the (a$ts and $ir$u'stan$es o( aarti$ular $ase- there should or should not be su$h si'ultaneity o( thero$eedings would then re$eive udi$ial $onsideration and the $ourt willde$ide in the given $ir$u'stan$es o( a arti$ular $ase as to whether the

dis$ilinary ro$eedings should be interdi$ted- ending $ri'inal trial. t is neither ossible nor advisable to evolve a hard and (ast- straight;

a$ket (or'ula valid (or all $ases and o( general ali$ation withoutregard to the arti$ularities o( the individual situation.


7/7

*eld

0e$ial leave allowed.

Order o( the high $ourt va$ated and that o( the

trial $ourt is restored.

%he $ri'inal a$tion and the dis$ilinaryro$eedings were grounded uon the sa'e seto( (a$ts. %he dis$ilinary ro$eedings should

have been stayed and the high $ourt was notright in inter(ering with the trial $ourts order o(inun$tion whi$h had been a,r'ed in aeal.

kusheshwar dubey vs bharat coking coal ltd & ors

Documents