# M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar Unit, Muzaffar Nagar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 239
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-05
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 51337 of 2012
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-triveni-eng-indus-ltd-sugar-unit-muzaffar-nagar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46026
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

institution of the criminal case - order of
termination stated that on account of nature
of offence - not possible to conduct any
domestic inquiry against the respondent no.3
- respondent no. 3 subsequently acquitted by
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Court - Held - when the trial had
resulted in an acquittal then no fault in the
Labour Tribunal award whereby termination
order set aside & respondent no. 3 was given
50% of his back wages - Court found no force
in submission that there was loss of
confidence - directed petitioner to adjust R-3
in the organization (Para 10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar Unit, Muzaffar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 239
provisions of the Intermediate Education.
However, the Assistant Registrar could
not have done so. The Assistant Registrar
could have only looked into the register
of members under Section 4B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. If there
was any dispute with regard to the
management, then he could have referred
the same to the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act. Furthermore, when the
order dated 14.8.2015 was not challenged
and, when by the order dated 4.1.2016
passed in Writ Petition No. 68194 of
2015 the Regional Level Committee was
asked to look into the grievance of the
petitioner of that writ petition in
accordance with law then the Court had
not
bestowed
the
Regional
Level
Committee the jurisdiction to sit in
appeal over the order dated 14.8.2015
passed by the Assistant Registrar. The
High Court had also not bestowed
powers on the Regional Level Committee
to the extent that it could have directed
the Registrar to to review his order dated
14.8.2015. When the writ petition did not
adjudicate upon the order 14.8.2015 then
the only irresistible conclusion was that
the order dated 14.8.2015 had attained
finality. Further, this Court is of the view
that when the High Court by its order
dated 14.1.2016 directed the parties to
approach the Regional Level Committee
then it had not bestowed any power on it
and when the Regional Level Committee
was adjudicating the matter it had to, in
the first instance, see if it had any
jurisdiction to look into the controversy
as was placed before it. The Regional
Level Committee had to decide the
matter in accordance with law.

12. Further, on merit, I find that the
Resolution dated 5.12.2010 was only to
enroll members in the future. Still further,
I am of the view that as per the bye-laws
if any new member had to be enrolled the
General Body was required to pass a
resolution accepting those members.
Since no meeting had taken place as per
the resolution dated 5.12.2010 it has to
be presumed that the members enrolled
on 5.12.2010 were not in fact members
under any resolution.

13. In view of what has been
observed above, the order 25.7.2016
passed by the Regional Level Committee
Allahabad cannot be sustained and is set
aside.

14. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2020)08ILR A239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 51337 of 2012

M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar
Unit, Muzaffar Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Singh, Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Bushra Maryam

Services of respondent no.3 (Cane Inspector)
dispensed
with simply because of the
institution of the criminal case - order of
termination stated that on account of nature
of offence - not possible to conduct any
domestic inquiry against the respondent no.3
- respondent no. 3 subsequently acquitted by
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Court - Held - when the trial had
resulted in an acquittal then no fault in the
Labour Tribunal award whereby termination
order set aside & respondent no. 3 was given
50% of his back wages - Court found no force
in submission that there was loss of
confidence - directed petitioner to adjust R-3
in the organization (Para 10)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Divisional Controller, Karnataka St. Rd. Trans.
Corp. Vs M.G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442

2. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs M.
Chandrashekhar Reddy & ors. (2005) 2 SCC 481

3. DCM Sri Ram Industries Ltd. Meerut Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. (2003) 99 FLR 24

4. M.L. Singla Vs P.N.B. (2018) 18 SCC 21

5. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Vs Khem Chand &
anr. (2006) 6 SCC 325

6. Kurukshetra University Vs Prithvi Singh
(2018) 4 SCC 483

7. Neeta Kaplish Vs P.O., Labour Court (1999)
1 SCC 517

8. U.P. S.R.T.C. Vs Rajendra Singh & anr.
2012 (4) ADJ 473

9. Deputy Inspector General of Police & anr.
Vs S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598

10. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration &
ors. Vs Pradeep Kumar & anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797

11. D.K. Yadav Vs M/s. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
1993 (67) FLR 111

12. U.O.I. Vs Naman Singh Shekhawat 2008
(118) FLR 1121

13. Amar Chakravarti & ors. Vs M/s. Maruti
Suzuki India Ltd. 2008 (118) FLR 1121

14. Bharat Singh & ors. Vs St. of Hary. & ors.
(1988) 4 SCC 534
15. L. Michael Vs Jhonson Pumps Ltd. 1975
(30) FLR 140

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. When on 27.1.2000 the services
of the respondent no.3 were done away
with, a dispute was raised by the
respondent no.3-Pramod Kumar which
was referred to the Labour Tribunal at
Meerut with the following reference :

"क्या सेवाय जक ों द्वारा अपिे
नववानदर्त श्रनमक श्री प्रम द कुमार पुत्र हरपाल
नसोंह की सेवाएों नदिाोंक 27.1.2000 से समाप्त
नकया जािा उनचर्त एवों वैिानिक है ? यनद िहीों
र्त
सम्बोंनिर्त
श्रनमक
नकस
नहर्तलाभ/अिुर्त िक पािे का अनिकारी है एवों
अन्य नकस नववरण सनहर्त ?"

2. When the reference was decided
in
favour
of
respondent
no.3
on
13.4.2012 whereby the order dated
27.1.2000
was
set-aside
and
the
respondent no.3 was given 50% of his
back-wages, the present writ petition was
filed.

3. The facts of the case are that on
29.12.1999, one Sri Subhash Chandra
Jaggi, Vice-President and the Head of the
Establishment run by the petitioner was
shot dead inside the factory premises.
Thereupon a Fact Finding Committee
was constituted to identify the culprits
who might have been involved in the
murder
of
the
Vice-President,
Sri
Subhash
Chandra
Jaggi.
Sri
Ajay
Sharma,
the
person
appointed
for
conducting the Fact Finding Inquiry,
submitted his report on 21.1.2000 by
which he had held the respondent no.3Pramod Kumar along with one Ajay
Kumar guilty of the murder of Subhash
8 All. M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar Unit, Muzaffar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 241
Chandra Jaggi. On 27.1.2000, an order
terminating the services of respondent
no.3 was passed. Aggrieved thereof, the
respondent no.3 had raised an industrial
dispute which was referred by the State
Government on 20.12.2002 for a decision
to the Industrial Tribunal (V), Meerut. In
the interregnum, after the murder of
Subhash Chandra Jaggi on 29.12.1999,
the police had also, upon a First
Information
Report
being
lodged,
submitted a charge-sheet on 29.2.2000
and a Sessions Trial being Sessions Trial
No.647 of 2000 was initiated. The
respondent no.3 was released on bail on
16.5.2000 and after a full-fledged trial,
the respondent no.3 was finally acquitted
in the Sessions Trial on 28.5.2002.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
the
learned
counsel
appearing for respondent no.3 had filed
their Written Submissions, which are
made part of the record.

5. The contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner were as follows
:

(i) The petitioner could not
have retained the respondent no.3 in its
establishment as, because of his doings,
they had no confidence in respondent
no.3 at all and, therefore, because of the
loss of confidence in respondent no.3, the
petitioner
could
not
reinstate
him.
Learned
counsel
for
the petitioner
contended that after the murder had taken
place on 29.12.1999, a Fact Finding
Inquiry in absolutely unambiguous terms
had held that the respondent no.3 was
definitely involved in the murder and he
submitted that the mere fact that the
respondent no.3 had been acquitted by a
Criminal Court would not mean that he
could be taken back by the petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that the very
fact that the respondent no.3 had
absconded after the commission of the
murder spoke volumes about the fact that
the respondent no.3 was guilty. Still
further, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondent no.3 had
been out of service for the past 21 years
and now he could not be taken back and
adjusted in the establishment of the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner to support his arguments relied
upon (2012) 1 SCC 442 : Divisional
Controller, Karnataka State Road
Transport Corportation vs. M.G. Vittal
Rao; (2005) 2 SCC 481 : Bharat Heavy
Electricals
Ltd.
vs.
M.
Chandrashekhar Reddy & Ors. and
(2003) 99 FLR 24 : DCM Sri Ram
Industries Ltd. Meerut vs. State of U.P.
& Ors..

(ii) The further contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that acquittal of the respondent no.3 was
not an honourable acquittal but was one
which was based on a benefit of doubt.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relying
upon various decisions of the Apex Court
submitted that a departmental inquiry and
a criminal trial were held in two different
spheres. When a departmental inquiry
was held, it was always the intention of
the department to see as to whether the
establishment would be brought to any
harm if the delinquent official is retained
in service. He submitted that a domestic
inquiry was based on the doctrine of
"preponderance of probabilities" whereas
a criminal trial is based on different
considerations altogether. He submitted
that in a criminal trial if there was even a
single doubt, the trial resulted in an
acquittal
and
it
could
always
be
presumed that the guilty had been
discharged of the stigma of being a
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
criminal. However, he submitted that
when it was found in the departmental
inquiry that the respondent no.3 was
involved in the criminal case, then he
could not have been retained by the
establishment i.e. by the petitioner.

(iii) Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Tribunal in
the award had not found any error in the
fact finding report.

(iv) Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that if the
inquiry
which
was
conducted
was
erroneous then the petitioner which had
made a specific prayer for a fresh inquiry
in the written statement filed before the
Tribunal, should have been allowed an
opportunity to lead further evidence
whereby charges against the respondent
no.3 could have been looked into. In this
regard, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon (2018) 18 SCC 21 : M.L.
Singla vs. Punjab National Bank;
(2006) 6 SCC 325 : Amrit Vanaspati
Co. Ltd. vs. Khem Chand & Anr.;
(2018) 4 SCC 483 : Kurukshetra
University vs. Prithvi Singh; (1999) 1
SCC 517 : Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court and 2012 (4)
ADJ 473 : U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Rajendra Singh &
Anr.. While the petitioner had argued
that the standards of departmental inquiry
and a criminal trial were based on
different parameters, he had taken
recourse to the decisions reported in
(2013) 1 SCC 598 : Deputy Inspector
General of Police & Anr. vs. S.
Samuthiram and (2018) 1 SCC 797 :
Union
Territory,
Chandigarh
Administration & Ors. vs. Pradeep
Kumar & Anr..

6. Learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no.3, however, in reply
submitted that in the absence of a fullfledged inquiry, wherein the respondent
no.3 was included in the inquiry, it could
be
presumed
that
there
were
no
departmental
inquiry
whatsoever.
Learned counsel submitted that the
Standing Orders also contemplated for a
full-fledged
inquiry,
even
if
the
delinquent
absented
himself.
She
submitted that a full-fledged inquiry
ought to have been undergone. Learned
counsel submitted that the respondent
no.3 was a permanent employee of the
petitioner and his services could not have
been
done-away
with
without
any
departmental inquiry. To support her
arguments, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 relied upon the decisions
reported in 1993 (67) FLR 111 : D.K.
Yadav vs. M/s. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.;
2008 (118) FLR 1121 : Union of India
vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat and
(2010)
10
SCC
471
:
Amar
Chakravarti & Ors. vs. M/s. Maruti
Suzuki India Limited..

7. The further contention of the
learned counsel for respondent no.3 was
that whether the petitioner had lost
confidence in respondent no.3 was never
pleaded or argued before the Tribunal
and, therefore, in the High Court while
the award was being challenged, it could
not be argued that the award was bad on
account of the fact that it had not
considered that there was loss of
confidence in respondent no.3. In this
regard, learned counsel relied upon the
decision reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534 :
Bharat Singh & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Ors..

8. Further more, learned counsel for
respondent no.3 submitted that the
petitioner could not have also taken a
8 All. M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar Unit, Muzaffar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 243
case of loss of confidence in respondent no.3
as the respondent no.3 was not working on
any post where, if he was reinstated, he
would divulge some secret etc. which would
be detrimental to the employer and, therefore,
it could not be argued by the petitioner that
they had lost confidence in the respondent
no.3. In this regard, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 relied upon 1975 (30) FLR
140 : L. Michael vs. Jhonson Pumps
Limited..

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.3 also submitted that when
the respondent no.3 was being reinstated,
he should have been granted the backwages.

10. Having heard learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.3, this Court
is of the view that no interference is
warranted in this writ petition. After the
Vice-President
of
the
petitionerestablishment Sri Subhash Chandra Jaggi
was found murdered, services of the
respondent no.3 were dispensed with on
27.1.2000 only on account of the fact that
a police case had been registered against
the respondent no.3 and the respondent
no.3 was found involved in that crime. It
was also found that because of the trial
which was being undergone in the
Criminal
Court,
the
services
of
respondent no.3 were done away with as
the involvement in the trial constituted a
serious offence under the Standing
Orders. The order of termination itself
had stated that on account of the nature
of the offence, it was not possible to
conduct any domestic inquiry against the
respondent no.3. The Court, therefore,
finds
that
simply
because
of
the
institution of the criminal case, the
termination order had been passed.
Furthermore, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
criminal trial had resulted in an acquittal
on the basis of "benefit of doubt" and not
on the basis of a full-fledged trial which
could be called an "honourable acquittal"
appears to be absolutely fallacious. A
perusal of the judgment and order passed
by the Trial Court definitely shows that it
was based on a correct assessment of
evidence as was led by the prosecution
and the defence. The acquittal had not
resulted on account of the fact that there
was no evidence or that witnesses had
been won over by the accused. It is
another matter that the acquittal had
taken place on account of the fact that the
Trial Court had found that the evidence
against
the
accused
was
doubtful.
Furthermore, since the termination order
was based on the fact that a Criminal
Trial was being undergone and that there
was no occasion for the petitioner to pray
for a domestic inquiry, I find that the
order of termination could not be
sustained. The domestic inquiry itself
was not undergone by the petitioner when
the respondent no.3 was involved and,
therefore, when the trial had resulted in an
acquittal and that too on the basis of a
genuine analysis of evidence brought on
record by the prosecution as also by the
defence, then no fault can be found with the
award. Still further, the Court finds that the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there was loss of confidence,
also holds no water. The respondent no.3
was a Cane Inspector and could always be
adjusted in the organization of the petitioner
which is a huge-one.

11. Under such circumstances, there
is no interference warranted in the writ
petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)08ILR A244
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Bail No. 10163 of 2019

Vinay Kumar Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
Union of India ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ayodhya Prasad Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 19, 24, 27-A - The Narcotics
Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 -Possession of Commercial quantity -
Ground for bail - Not unless P.P. has been
given opportunity to oppose bail application -
In case bail opposed by P.P. - There should
be reason to believe that applicant not guilty
and not likely to commit offence while on bail
- No such ground made out .

The bail is rejected. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. The instant pre-trial bail application
has been moved by the applicant who has
been charged under Sections 8/20/29/60 (3)
of the Narcotic Drugs & Substances Act
(hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act), P.S.
NCB, Lucknow.

2. Heard Sri A.P. Mishra, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri
Akhilesh
Kumar
Awasthi,
learned
counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau.

3. The facts giving rise to the
instant bail application are that as per the
prosecution case, it is alleged that on the
basis of information given by the Zonal
Director of Narcotics Control Bureau to
the complainant that Ganja in huge
quantity is being transported hidden in a
concealed cavity in Truck No. UP 44 T
1781 and is moving from Chhatisgarh
and would be reaching Faizabad via
Akbarpur Road between 4:00 PM to 6:00
PM on 17.11.2019.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid
information
a
raiding
team
was
constituted. The information was reduced
in writing by the complainant and was
placed
before
the
superior
officerthereafter the complianant along
with
other
departmental
officers
proceeded in the departmental vehicles
and reached the Devkali Chauraha at
Faizabad at around 03:30 PM on
17.01.2019. After reaching the aforesaid
Devkali Chauraha, Sri Rajesh Singh, Sub
Inspector of the U.P. Police was also
informed about the information regarding
the transportation of Ganja and his
assistance was sought in the search and
seizure proceedings, which was accepted
and he along with raiding team of the
NCB positioned themselves.

5. At around 04:30 PM, the said
truck was spotted and was intercepted by
the raiding team near the petrol pump on
the Akbarpur Faizabad Highway on the
Akbarpur side. Upon intercepting the
said Truck bearing No. UP 44 T 1781 two
person were found traveling therein who
identified themselves as Vivek Kumar
Mishra (the present applicant) and the
other identified himself as Kaleem.