2026:JHHC:25938

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(L) No. 1821 of 2025

M/s. Waxpol Industries Limited, a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956, through its Manager (Legal) Dipankar Ghosh,

aged about 56 years, Son of late Sabit Ghosh, working at the

Registered & Head Office at 9, Mitter House, 71, Ganesh Chandra

Avenue, P.O., P.S. & District – Kolkata – 700013

… … Petitioner

Versus

Narendra Nath Tiwari, Son of Shri Prasad Tiwari, resident of

Indrapuri, Road No.12, Ratu Road, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, P.O. &

District – Ranchi - 834001 … … Respondent

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate

: Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate

---

CAV on 29.04.2026 Pronounced on 27.08.2026

1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) For a writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside

the order dated 17.01.2025, passed by Shri Gopal

Pandey, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in B.S.

Case No.02/2005 (Annexure – 15), directing

reinstatement of the Respondent in the service of the

petitioner – company with 50% back wages, without

application of mind, and by overlooking the evidence on

record that proved the grave charge of theft and

dishonesty which was even partially admitted by the

respondent himself.

(ii) For any other appropriate writ/rule/direction for

setting aside the finding in the order impugned regarding

validity of the disciplinary enquiry which has been

erroneously decided by adopting incorrect standards of

proof and by overlooking the settled law that the strict

technicalities of procedure are inapplicable to enquiry

proceedings.

(iii) For any other relief(s) to which the Petitioner may be

found to be entitled to in law be also granted for doing

conscionable justice to the Petitioner.

2026:JHHC:25938

2

(iv) For stay of the operation and implementation of the

order/judgement dated 17.01.2025 passed in B.S. Case

No.02/2025.”

2. The petitioner is an establishment under the provisions of

Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Act. The respondent employee

was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the petitioner by issuing

a charge sheet and was ultimately terminated from service. The

employee challenged the action of the petitioner before the learned

Labour Court. The learned Labour Court framed the following issues

for consideration: -

“(1) Whether the petition filed by the applicant u/s. 26(2) of

B.S.E. Act read with Rule 21 of Jharkhand Shops Establishment

Rules is maintainable.?

(2) Whether the management/employer/opposite party have been

able to establish the charges of misconduct against the

applicant?

(3) Whether the applicant is entitled to get any relief?”

3. The learned Labour court has set-aside the order of termination

and directed reinstatement of the Respondent-employee in the service

of the petitioner – company with 50% back wages. The final order of

the learned Labour Court is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. This is the 2

nd

round of litigation before this court. The learned

labour court had earlier passed an order dated 27.04.2009 setting aside

the order of termination which was challenged by the petitioner in writ

petition being W.P.(L) No. 3759 of 2009 and the order impugned in

the said writ petition was set-aside and the matter was remanded

before the learned Labour Court for fresh consideration. The

paragraphs of the order of remand relevant for the present case are

quoted as under: -

“8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and

considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court

finds that the application was filed by the private respondent

under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act

challenging his order of dismissal dated 03.02.2005. On the

basis of pleadings, the learned court framed the issues as

mentioned above which included the issue of maintainability.

2026:JHHC:25938

3

The learned court decided the issue no. 1 by holding that the

case was maintainable. The said finding is not under challenge

during the course of hearing and accordingly the findings with

regard to issue no. 1 does not call for any interference.

9….

10…

11. This Court finds that while deciding issue no. 2, the learned

court has not deliberated upon the various materials on the

basis of which conclusion has been arrived at issue no. 2. The

order does not reflect as to how the court has arrived at

conclusion at paragraph no. 10. The paragraph 10 refers to one

statement of opposite party no.2 said to have been corroborated

by one statement of opposite party no.4. The materials on

record reveal that as many as 3 witnesses were examined by the

applicant employee and numerous documentary evidences were

placed on record and as many as 4 witnesses were examined by

the petitioners-employer and many documents were exhibited. A

grievance has been raised by the petitioners that the written

explanation of the concerned employee Exhibit 4/C also has not

been considered and the evidence of the security guard, who

was examined as a witness O.P. No.1 has also not been

considered along with other materials placed on record while

arriving at the conclusion in paragraph 10 of the impugned

order.

12. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 9 SCC 496

Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another versus Masood

Ahmed Khan and Others, paragraph 47 that the reasons in

support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A valid

decision-making process must be backed by adequate and

intelligent reasons.

13. This Court finds that material evidences placed on record

have not been considered while arriving at the conclusion in

paragraph 10 of the impugned order, although the evidences

have been mentioned in the earlier portion of the impugned

order. The materials placed on record are not only required to

be mentioned but are also required to be deliberated upon

before arriving at a conclusion/finding and such deliberations

must also reflect in the order. The findings at paragraph 10

lacks such an exercise of judicial mind. Accordingly, the

impugned order is perverse calling for interference under writ

jurisdiction. The impugned order is hereby set-aside.

14. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the concerned

court to give well-reasoned findings in connection with issue

no. 2 and consequential relief in issue no. 3 after hearing the

2026:JHHC:25938

4

parties and based on the materials already available on

record.”

5. Thus, the finding that the case was maintainable has attained

finality and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the

remaining two issues, that is issue nos. (ii) and (iii).

6. By the impugned order, the issue nos. (ii) and (iii) have been

again decided in favour of the respondent employee by setting aside

the order of termination and by directing reinstatement with 50% back

wages.

7. Arguments of the petitioner – management

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been

passed under the provisions of Jharkhand Shops and Establishment

Act and has pointed out the following perversities: -

(i) The learned counsel has referred the Annexure-2 which is Ext.4/c

and has submitted that-

The concerned employee had admitted his guilt that he

had taken away the company’s goods and the same was

to be used in his Motorcycle;

The reply of the concerned employee clearly reveals

that he was all set to use the one litre or two bottles of

shocker oil which were handed-over to a co-employee,

Budhan Munda if the medical bill and estimate for

repair of motorcycle was not sanctioned;

It was clearly a preparation for theft and since the

goods were taken into custody before the employee

could use, as such, the order of punishment was proper;

The employee was confronted with his reply i.e. Ext.-

4/c during his cross-examination and here, the

employee has clearly admitted that he had given three

jars of rubbing compound to Budhan Lal Munda and

also admitted that he had taken out shocker oil for use

in his bike;

2026:JHHC:25938

5

There is clear admission on the part of the employee

that he had taken out goods of the petitioner-company

for his own use without any permission.

(ii) He has then referred to Annexure-10/2 which is the deposition of

the concerned employee who was examined as AW.3 and

submitted that during his cross-examination also, the employee

had admitted his guilt, but this has also not been considered;

(iii) The approach of the learned Labour Court is itself incorrect

inasmuch as the learned Labour Court was of the view that the

Management was required to prove their case to the hilt; Such

approach is perverse. The standard of proof is preponderance of

probabilities and there was no requirement for the Management

to prove the case against the employee to the hilt. The admitted

fact needs not to be proved and the admission of the concerned

employee having not been taken into consideration makes the

impugned order perverse.

(iv) Grant of 50% back-wages is also perverse as there is no

foundational plea from the side of the concerned employee that

he was not gainfully employed elsewhere and no evidence as

such has been dealt with.

(v) Once the allegation of theft is admitted, dismissal was the only

punishment which could have been given, as theft in an industry

leads to complete loss of confidence.

(vi) Learned counsel referred to Rule 20 of the Jharkhand Shops and

Establishment Rules and submitted that list of acts which could

be termed as misconduct has been mentioned therein and referred

to Clause –1(d) which deals with the “theft, fraud or dishonesty

in connection with the employer's business property.” Learned

counsel submitted that aforesaid clause would cover the

preparation of the employee to dishonestly use the company’s

property.

(vii) It is submitted that the action of the respondent-employee is

also a misconduct under the Standing Orders 8 and 9 of the

2026:JHHC:25938

6

company as annexed at Annexure-4, Clause -8, 9 and 10 read as

under: -

8.Theft within the factory or fraud or

dishonesty in connection with the Company’s

business.

9. Taking out of the works any article or

material belonging to the Company without a

Gate-Pass issued by the Company.

10. Hiding away or attempting to hide away

any article or material.

(viii) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

judgement reported in (2008) 5 SCC 554 (Usha Breco Mazdoor

Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco Limited and Another)

paragraphs 33 and 34 to submit that the standard of proof in

matters arising out of departmental proceedings or domestic

enquiry is that of preponderance of probability and the entire

approach of the learned labour court is erroneous. As per the

impugned order, the management has not been able to prove the

misconduct to the hilt and such approach is incorrect. He then

referred to the judgement reported in (2007) 1 SCC 222 (A.P.

SRTC Vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad) and submitted that in a

case of theft, the dismissal is the appropriate punishment.

(ix) The learned counsel has submitted that the specific case of the

petitioner is that there was an attempted theft inasmuch as the

company’s property was hidden in the residential quarter of a co-

employee, who informed this fact to the management and

ultimately the goods were recovered. He has submitted that the

act amounts to hiding away company’s property leading to loss

of confidence, and therefore, the punishment of dismissal could

be the appropriate punishment.

(x) The learned counsel has also submitted that 50% back wages has

been awarded without citing any material and without citing any

reason. On this count also the award requires interference.

2026:JHHC:25938

7

(xi) He submits that impugned order be set aside and it be held that

the petitioner has proved the case against the employee by

applying the standard of proof based on the preponderance of

probabilities and consequently the order of termination be not

interfered by this Court.

(xii) The learned counsel has referred to the discussion of evidence

by the learned labour court from paragraph 22 onwards of the

impugned order and submitted that irrespective of any ocular

evidence, the employee had himself admitted that he had moved

the company’s property and kept it in the residence of the co-

employee and on his admission, the charge stood proved against

the employee.

8. Arguments of the respondent -employee

A. The learned counsel for the respondent-employee has submitted

that the alleged date of occurrence is 27.05.2004 and charge

sheet has been issued on 18.06.2004. He has further submitted

that as per the management, a complaint was received by the

co-employee Budhan Lal Munda on 05.06.2004 and 2

nd

complaint by the security guard on 14.06.2004 but as per the

respondent-employee, the alleged complaints were dated

05.09.2004 and 14.09.2004 respectively, and consequently, the

charge sheet was issued prior to any complaint.

B. He has then referred to the charge sheet at Annexure – 1 and

has submitted that the charge sheet itself reveals that as per the

allegation Budhan Lal Munda had taken the material to his

quarter as per the advice of the respondent -employee. It was

alleged that the materials were taken out from finished goods

godown of Ranchi without any authorization from the

competent authority, but the records, including the evidence of

the management witness, would show that there was nothing to

demonstrate that the goods were taken out from the finished

goods godown. Rather, the evidence of Sudhir Chatterjee,

Finance Manager, would show that he had asked the petitioner

2026:JHHC:25938

8

to explore the possibility of selling these rejected goods to

persons outside.

C. The learned counsel submits that once the concerned goods

were rejected goods, there is no scope to keep such rejected

goods in finished goods godown.

D. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the reply

filed by the concerned employee and has submitted that entire

gamut of affairs has been explained therein.

E. Learned counsel has referred to the standing order contained in

Annexure-4 and referred to clauses 8, 9 and 10, which have

already been referred by the counsel for the petitioner, and has

submitted that none of the clauses have been attracted as there

has been no theft. Further no article has been taken out from the

company’s premises and there is no question of any hiding

away or attempting to hide away any article or material in as

much as it was duly known to Budan Lal Munda that under the

instructions of the concerned employee the goods were kept in

his residence for the purposes of inspection by the garage

mechanic who might use those rejected goods for useful

purpose.

F. The learned counsel has then referred to Rule 20 of Jharkhand

Shops and Establishment Rules, 2001 which gives the list of

acts which have been termed as misconduct and submitted that

the alleged act of the employee does not come under Rule 20(1)

(d) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner.

G. The finding of the enquiry report has been placed which is

containing in paragraph 33 to 35 at page 39 of the writ petition.

The learned counsel submitted that in the enquiry report also

there is no such finding that the finished goods were removed

from the godown nor there is any finding that the employee had

committed theft or had attempted to commit theft. The learned

counsel submits that as per enquiry report the employee was

2026:JHHC:25938

9

held guilty in part and whatever explanation was furnished by

the employee has been reiterated.

H. The learned counsel submits that prior to imposing punishment,

a copy of the enquiry report was never furnished to the

employee. The order of termination is at Annexure-5.

I. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the order

of termination the enquiry officer found the employee guilty of

charges but the enquiry report itself reveals that he was only

found partly guilty of the charges and there is no finding of any

attempted theft or theft of the company’s goods.

J. The learned counsel submits that since the enquiry report was

not furnished and even the termination letter was not furnished,

the concerned employee served the legal notice dated

16.05.2005. After the order of termination, the enquiry report

and the termination letter were simultaneously supplied to the

employee in response to the legal notice and thereafter, the

employee filed the case under Bihar Shops and Establishment

Act challenging his order of termination.

K. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the

evidence of the employee, para 8 onwards, and submitted that

one S.S. Bhattacharya joined the establishment and he told the

employee that since the employee is engaged in lot of purchase,

he wanted some commission to which the employee refused and

thereafter the employee was subjected to a number of charge

sheets one after another and in none of the charge sheets Shri

S.S. Bhattacharya succeeded and ultimately the charge sheet

involved in the present case was issued at the instance of S.S.

Bhattacharya. The learned counsel submits that in paragraph 32

the employee submitted that Shri Bhattacharya issued charge

sheet to the employee on 18.06.2004 without any complaint

from any corner. He has stated in paragraph 35 that no such

reference was made of any particular clause of standing order in

the charge sheet.

2026:JHHC:25938

10

L. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 86 of the

deposition and has submitted that reference was made to the

letter dated 05.09.2004 which was said to have been filed by

Budhan Lal Munda to S.S. Bhattacharya. It was already

exhibited as exhibit-13. The learned counsel has referred to

paragraph 92 of the deposition to submit that huge amount of

responsibility in connection with purchase of goods and

licensing, taxation and liaisoning was being handled by the

concerned employee. During the cross examination also in

paragraph 117 and 118, the concerned employee has stated that

S.S. Bhattacharya had demanded commission to the extent of

10% with respect to the purchase of goods. The learned counsel

refers to paragraph 125 of cross examination of the concerned

employee and has submitted that exhibit-4(c), which was the

reply filed by the employee, was referred to and certain alleged

admission was recorded, but the exhibit does not reflect such

admissions. He submits that Budhan Lal Munda was examined

as P.W. 2.

M. The evidence of security guard has been annexed at page no.

127 of the writ petition. The learned counsel has referred to

paragraph 20 of his cross examination and has submitted that he

has admitted that the finished goods were kept in the godown

and he was in possession of the keys of the godown. He has

further referred to paragraph 24 and has submitted that the

authority to take out goods was with N.N. Tiwari. In paragraph

33 this witness has admitted that alleged goods were not kept in

the godown but it was outside the godown. The learned counsel

submits that on the face of these witnesses the charge itself is

not proved. He has referred to paragraph 45 of the cross

examination of Mr. Srikant Pandey and has submitted that he

has stated that exhibit-c carries the date 14.06.2004 and as the

pen stopped writing therefore, he used another pen to make it

nine. The learned counsel has thereafter referred to the evidence

of Budhan Lal Munda at page no. 143 of the writ petition and

2026:JHHC:25938

11

has referred to paragraphs 16 and 17 of his cross-examination to

say that he admitted that the goods were not kept in the

godown.

N. The learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 27, 28 and 29 of

the cross-examination of Budhan Lal Munda and it is submitted

by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said witness

has clearly deposed that he had lodged the complaint only in the

month of September. He submits that this itself goes to show

that the complaint was lodged in the month of September and

charge-sheet was issued prior to that. The learned has further

referred to paragraph 30 of cross-examination of Budhan Lal

Munda to submit that the cutting in the written complaint was

done on the day when he went to give his deposition and in

paragraph 31, he has stated that no charge-sheet was issued to

him in connection with the recovery made from his house.

O. Learned counsel for the respondent has then referred to the

deposition of manager (finance) namely, Shri Sudhir Chatterjee

and has in particular referred to his statement at paragraph 11 to

submit that this witness has clearly deposed that the goods were

rejected goods and he had given the permission to sell it off.

P. The learned counsel for the respondent has then referred to the

impugned order and has submitted that the learned court has

also taken note of the fact that even in the domestic enquiry, the

employee was not found guilty of theft or taking goods from

finished goods godown.

Q. The learned counsel submits that this finding is apparently

based on the materials on record which has already been placed

by the learned counsel. He submits that detailed discussion with

respect to all the documents etc., both oral and documentary

evidences, have been made and ultimately, the learned court

summarized its findings in paragraph 27 of the impugned order

and held in paragraph 29 that the management has not been able

to prove the charges against the employee and therefore, the

termination of the employee was not proper.

2026:JHHC:25938

12

9. At the end of the argument, it has come to light that the

concerned employee has already attained the age of superannuation

and therefore, there is no question of taking him back to service.

Findings of this Court

10. The charge-sheet issued to the respondent -employee by the

management at Annexure-1 is quoted as under: -

“It has been alleged that you have kept about 5 Ltr. of

shocker oil in one poly container in Mr. Budhan Lal

Munda’s quarter inside the Ranchi Office premises. In

addition, three poly containers containing 3 Kgs each

of Rubbing Compound Green was also found in the

quarter of Mr. Budhan Lal Munda.

In this connection our Ranchi Office Security Guard

Mr. Srikant Pandey has been informed by Mr. Budhan

Lal Munda that these materials were taken to Mr.

Budhan Lal Munda’s quarter as per the advice of you.

We were surprised to find this since the materials were

taken out from the finished goods godown of Ranchi

Office without any authorization from the competent

authority and would therefore like to have an

explanation from you on the above immediately.”

11. The show cause reply of the concerned employee reveals that

he has disclosed the entire events from beginning with respect to

Rubbing Compound and also Shocker Oil as to how and in what

manner the alleged goods were waste material and not capable of

being put to any use and that they were never kept in the finished

goods godown. It was also stated that the bike repairing bill and

medical bill of the concerned employee was pending for approval with

the management and hence the concerned employee stated that as to

why he would use old shocker oil for his bike. He also stated he had

thought of using the shocker oil in his bike but his intention was never

bad and if it was bad then he would have acted in a different manner.

The show cause reply has been placed on record.

12. The domestic enquiry proceeded; three witnesses of the

management were examined and statement of the employee was

2026:JHHC:25938

13

recorded and the enquiry report was prepared with following

findings:-

“33. Considering the aforementioned documents and materials

and the evidences/statements of the management as well as the

charge sheeted employee I came to the conclusion that as stated

by the Management Representative Rubbing compound was

entrusted to Mr. Tiwari to sell the same in the market because

the same was rejected materials and the management’s witness

told that socker oil was lying in the management’s office since

last 2-3 years. This socker oil which was found inside Budhan

Lal Munda’s quarter was without any authorisation from the

management Although Mr. Budhan Lal Munda's quarter was

inside the Ranchi Office campus but the material was supposed

to have been inside the office premises and not inside the quarter

of Budhan Lal Munda.

34. On the contrary as delinquent employee Mr. N.N. Tiwari has

himself accepted in his written reply of the charge sheet and as

well as in his statement during the course of enquiry he said that

he had given 3 Poly containers containing 3 Kgs. each of

Rubbing compound and 5 Ltr. Socker oil container to Mr.

Budhan Lal Munda for keeping in his quarter and as he has not

filed any sanctioned/permission letter in the eqnuiry for doing so,

therefore he is guilty to the charges that the materials were taken

to Mr. Budhan Lal Munda's quarter as per the advice of Mr.

N.N. Tiwari without any authorisation/sanction from the

competent Authority.

35. I hereby conclude and hold that Mr. Narendra Nath Tiwari is

guilty in part of having committed the guilt of keeping the

materials 5 Ltr. of Socker oil in one poly container and three

poly containers, containing 3 Kgs. each of Rubbing compound

green which were taken to Mr. Budhan Lal Munda's quarter as

per the advice of him.”

13. Thus, the enquiry officer recoded that the employee was guilty

in part but the management issued a letter observing that the employee

was guilty of the charges levelled against him and ultimately

terminated his services. The employee moved the learned court and

challenged the action of the management.

14. Before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, the

employee adduced evidences of 3 witnesses including himself and

filed numerous documents. So far as the management is concerned, 4

2026:JHHC:25938

14

witnesses were examined on their behalf and documentary evidences

were also produced.

15. The learned court, after discussing the materials on record at

length, both oral and documentary evidences, has recorded in

paragraph 16 of the impugned order that it is an admitted fact that the

concerned employee was appointed on 19.02.1993 on the post of

Stenographer-cum-Office Assistant and he was in continuous service

prior to his termination. Further, it has been established that the

concerned employee was given the work of dispatch of finished

products and was authorized to keep in touch with the government

department, as and when required.

16. Further finding has been recorded in paragraph 17 of the

impugned order that the concerned employee had also challenged the

legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and the court found that

as per the report of the enquiry officer (exhibit-F), the concerned

employee was found guilty to the extent that under his instruction the

alleged goods were kept in the house of Budhan Lal Munda. The

learned court further recorded that the enquiry officer did not find the

concerned employee guilty of taking out the alleged goods from

finished goods godown and theft of such goods.

17. The learned Court further recorded in paragraph 18 that the

enquiry officer in paragraph 16 to 17 of his cross-examination has

stated that he did not pass any order on the applications filed by the

concerned employee and after response of the management, the

enquiry proceeded further and also stated that concerned employee

was not provided a copy of the preliminary enquiry. The Court has

also recorded that during the cross-examination of the enquiry officer,

it has come that a copy of the standing order was also not provided to

the concerned employee.

The Court has recorded a finding that the evidence of the enquiry

officer reveals that the concerned employee, during enquiry

proceedings, had raised objection and for which he also filed

applications, but no order was passed on such applications and the

enquiry proceeded. In support of this finding, a reference has been

2026:JHHC:25938

15

made to the order-sheet of enquiry proceedings dated 03.12.2004.

Thereafter, the learned court has referred to the two applications filed

by the concerned employee before the enquiry officer that were

marked exhibit- 4/e and 4/f whereby the concerned employee raised

objection and asked for certain reports, but the same was neither

provided to the concerned employee, nor any order was passed on

such applications and the enquiry proceeded which was apparent from

the examination of the enquiry officer. The Court further recorded that

exhibit-D was the proceeding sheet of the domestic enquiry which was

completed by the enquiry officer, who was an advocate, during the

period from 14.08.2004 to 11.12.2004.

18. The learned court recorded that during the enquiry, on behalf of

the management altogether three witnesses were examined and cross-

examined by the concerned employee; On 04.12.2004 the evidence of

the management was closed and on the next date, i.e., on 11.12.2004,

the statement of the concerned employee was recorded but the

management did not cross-examine the concerned employee and on

the very same day, the evidence of the concerned employee was

closed. The court recorded that in this manner the concerned employee

was granted only one day which was not sufficient opportunity for the

concerned employee to defend himself.

In paragraph 20 of the impugned order, the learned court has

concluded that the domestic enquiry was not held in accordance with

the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the objections raised by

the concerned employee were not disposed of and the enquiry

proceeded without disposing of the objections and the employee was

not granted adequate opportunity to present his case. The learned court

further recorded that the enquiry officer has given his findings without

properly appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. The enquiry

report was set-aside.

19. After having recorded the aforesaid instances of violation of

principles of natural justice during the domestic enquiry in paragraph

18 of the impugned order, the learned court considered the oral

evidences of the management witnesses threadbare. Thereafter, the

2026:JHHC:25938

16

learned court discussed the evidence of the concerned employee. The

learned court noted that this witness during his evidence-in-chief has

denied the allegation and has also referred to his show-cause reply

dated 05.07.2004. With respect to shocker oil, he has stated that the

goods were received from Raipur factory in damaged and leaked

condition and he had given due information about these damaged

goods to the head office. On account of damaged goods, he and his

staff, Budhan Lal Munda, with the help of Shrikant Pandey, poured

the goods in 5 litre jar, but this good was not fit for sale and therefore,

it was not kept in the finished goods godown, rather it was kept near

the almirah in the office way back in September, 2000 and it was lying

there till 21.05.2004. He has further stated that on 16.04.2004 he had

to go to Sales Tax office, but on his way, he met with an accident.

Consequently, he was on medical leave from 16.04.2004 to

26.04.2004 and since he had met with an accident while doing office

work, he was asked to submit his medical bill and estimate of bike

repairing which he duly submitted, but the same were not yet

approved in spite of his repeated requests. The mechanic had also told

him that apart from other goods, shocker oil would also be required.

The concerned employee was of the view that since the management

has to pay the bill of bike repairing so this shocker oil can be used and

consequently, on 21.05.2004, he gave the shocker oil to Budhan Lal

Munda to keep it in his quarter, so that the mechanic could test it, but

during the period from 21.05.2004 to 27.05.2004, he did not take the

shocker oil to show to anybody. From 26.05.2004 to 28.05.2004,

Budhan Lal Munda was on leave. With respect to 3 jars of rubbing

compound, he had asked Shrikant Pandey that one 5 litre jar of

rubbing compound was lying in the house of Budhan Lal Munda and

he had asked Shrikant Pandey to bring the same and keep it in the

godown and informed the management about it. After 4-5 days, the

factory manager came for enquiry to Ranchi office and he disclosed

the entire things to him which he had also disclosed in his show-cause

reply and it was within the knowledge of Shrikant Pandey.

2026:JHHC:25938

17

20. The learned court, after discussing the evidence of the

concerned employee, has recorded its finding in paragraph 19 that the

concerned employee, in his show-cause, had denied the allegation

made against him and had given details of the entire incident in his

show-cause reply. The learned court was of the view that the evidence

of the concerned employee revealed that under the instruction of the

concerned employee, the alleged goods were kept in the house of

Budhan Lal Munda, but the concerned employee had no ill intention

and he had explained the entire facts and circumstances.

21. The learned court considered the evidences placed on record

and specifically considered the plea of the petitioner-management that

the concerned employee had admitted his guilt by way of reply to the

charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was Exhibit-3/c and the reply to the

charge-sheet was Exhibit-4/c.

The learned court also considered that even in the enquiry report

(Exhibit-F), the enquiry officer did not find the concerned employee

guilty of the charges levelled against him and found that he was only

partly guilty.

The learned court considered that as per the enquiry report also, the

concerned employee was not found guilty of taking out any goods

from the godown and the enquiry officer did not find the concerned

employee guilty of taking out any goods from godown without

permission of the competent authority. The enquiry officer only found

the concerned employee guilty of keeping the goods in the house of

Budhan Lal Munda.

The learned court recorded that in spite of the fact that the enquiry

officer found the concerned employee only partly guilty, the

Management while passing the order of termination recorded that the

concerned employee was found guilty of the charges levelled against

him which was of serious misconduct and terminated the services of

the concerned employee vide termination letter as contained in

Exhibit-15/a. Even in reply to the legal notice, sent by the

Management to the concerned employee, the Management had

mentioned that the concerned employee was found guilty of the

2026:JHHC:25938

18

charges in the enquiry, but the fact remains that the enquiry officer

had found the concerned employee partly guilty, which indicated that

the Management was acting with a pre-conceived notion and even the

enquiry report, whereby the concerned employee was held to be

partly guilty of the charges, has not been considered by the

Management while passing the order of termination.

22. The argument of the Management that the concerned employee

had admitted his guilt has been considered at the end of paragraph 25

onwards of the impugned order. The learned court upon perusal of the

show-cause reply (Exhibit-4/c) filed by the concerned employee found

that the complete reading of Exhibit-4/c revealed that he was entrusted

to sell the useless goods and the alleged goods, that is, 5-liter shocker

oil and 3 liter rubbing compound were also entrusted to the concerned

employee, which has been stated by Sudhir Chatterjee in his evidence.

It was also clear from his reply that the concerned employee has not

drawn any benefit out of the alleged goods. The learned court also

considered the cross-examination of the concerned employee,

paragraph 125, wherein he admitted that he had given three containers

of rubbing compound to Budhan Lal Munda and had taken out

shocker oil for use in his bike, but such evidence is only a part of his

evidence and the same cannot be read in isolation to say that the

concerned employee had admitted his guilt. The learned court also

recorded that it was the case of the Management that when the

concerned employee in his show cause reply denied the allegation,

they decided to initiate domestic enquiry and observed that if the show

cause reply was an admission of his guilt, there was no need to

constitute domestic enquiry on the charges levelled against the

concerned employee. The learned court also took note of the fact that

the Management neither produced the Standing Order nor the same

has been exhibited and all the Management Witnesses had stated that

the concerned employee had denied the allegations made against him

and there was no dispute that the concerned employee had denied the

allegation made against him. The learned court ultimately held that the

2026:JHHC:25938

19

concerned employee did not accept his guilt in his reply to show cause

vide Exhibit-4/c.

23. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5

SCC 554 (supra) to submit that the standard of proof in the matter

arising out of departmental proceeding or domestic enquiry is that of

preponderance of probability and the entire approach of the learned

labour court was erroneous and as per the impugned order, the

Management has not been able to prove the misconduct to the hilt and

such approach was incorrect.

Upon going through the impugned order as discussed above, this

Court is of the view that the learned court has not applied the yardstick

of proof of misconduct to the hilt. The learned court recorded that the

enquiry itself was in violation of principles of natural justice and

otherwise also the Management proceeded to pass the order of

termination by observing that the concerned employee was held guilty

of the charges levelled against him, although even as per the enquiry

report, the concerned employee was found partly guilty. Accordingly,

the aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner in any manner.

24. The 2

nd

judgment which has been relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner is reported in (2007) 1 SCC 222 (supra) to

submit that in a case of theft, dismissal is the appropriate punishment.

However, at the same time, the learned counsel has submitted that the

case of the Management is that there was an attempt to commit theft

as the company’s property was hidden in the residential quarter of the

co-employee, who informed the Management and ultimately the goods

were recovered. The aforesaid fact that the goods were kept in a

hidden condition in the residential quarter of the co-employee was

also not proved, inasmuch as, the learned court recorded that the other

employees also knew that it was kept there. The learned court has

considered the entire gamut of affairs and the facts and circumstances

of the case and also observed that the goods were neither misused by

the concerned employee nor the same were used by the concerned

employee for his own purpose and the goods were within the

2026:JHHC:25938

20

boundary of the establishment and these goods being damaged and

non-useable goods were never kept in finished goods godown, but

were kept initially in the office/veranda.

The aforesaid judgment also does not help the petitioner in any

manner.

25. The learned court, after discussing the entire materials placed

on record and also holding that there was violation of principles of

natural justice in conducting the domestic enquiry and also

considering that the reply filed by the concerned employee was not his

admission of guilt, ultimately summarized the findings in paragraph

27 of the impugned order, whose English translation is as under: -

i. The alleged goods of the company i.e. rubbing compound was

received from Tatisilwai office two-three years back in

damaged and useless condition for selling in the market/garage.

Shocker oil was received from Raipur in useless/leaking

condition.

ii. The aforesaid goods were not kept in the finished goods

godown, but that were kept in the office/Veranda.

iii. The concerned employee was authorized by the Tatisilwai

Office to sell the aforesaid goods in market/garage.

iv. The applicant has been selling the useless goods of the company

in market/garage with the permission of the competent authority

from Tatisilwai office.

v. The applicant did not accept his guilt in his show cause reply

(Exhibit-4/c).

vi. The applicant has not misused the alleged goods nor has used

the same for his own benefit.

vii. The alleged goods were never taken out from the office

premises, but it was kept within the office premises in the

residence of Budhan Lal Munda with due knowledge to others

and was kept in safe condition.

viii. The Management has not issued any show cause to Budhan Lal

Munda [ from whose house the goods were recovered] nor has

2026:JHHC:25938

21

issued any charge-sheet to the person who had given the

permission to the concerned employee to sell the goods.

ix. The applicant had no intention to misuse the alleged goods.

x. The Management did not serve the order of termination to the

concerned employee nor any such publication was made in the

newspaper.

xi. The concerned employee was not served with any notice prior

to termination nor was given any compensation for termination.

26. The learned court also held that under the Jharkhand Shops and

Established Rules, 2001, a list of misconduct has been provided in

Rule 20, but the conduct of the concerned employee does not fall

under any of the items in Rule 20. Earlier in the judgment, the learned

court has recorded that the standing order of the establishment was not

produced or exhibited before the learned court.

27. After having held as aforesaid, the learned court concluded that

the Management has failed to establish the alleged misconduct against

the concerned employee and therefore the order of termination dated

03.02.2005 was not sustainable and was fit to be set-aside and

consequently the order of termination was set-aside. The issue no. (ii)

was accordingly decided in favour of the concerned employee. While

deciding the issue no. (iii), the learned court directed reinstatement of

the concerned employee from the date of termination and also directed

50% back wages and consequently allowed the case of the concerned

employee.

28. This Court finds that the learned court, after remand vide order

passed in W.P. (L) No. 3759 of 2009 directing to pass fresh order in

connection with issue nos. (ii) and (iii), has considered the materials

on record threadbare and, inter alia, came to specific findings as

recorded above that the enquiry was held in violation of principles of

natural justice, inasmuch as, the objections raised by the concerned

employee were not disposed of ; the concerned employee was not

given adequate opportunity to defend himself; the enquiry officer

found that the concerned employee was only partly guilty, but the

Management proceeded with a pre-conceived mind that the charges

2026:JHHC:25938

22

levelled against the concerned employee were proved as per the

enquiry report and terminated the concerned employee by alleging

serious misconduct; the concerned employee never admitted his guilt

through his reply vide Exhibit-4/c; the concerned employee neither

misused the alleged goods nor used the alleged goods for his own

benefit and the Management failed to prove the alleged misconduct.

29. This Court finds no perversity in the impugned order passed by

the learned court, so far as its findings are concerned and accordingly,

the same does not call for any interference. Further, upon reading of

the show cause reply of the concerned employee it cannot be said that

the employee had admitted his guilt, rather he had explained the entire

circumstances since beginning and that his action did not reveal that

he had any bad intention. Even the learned court has taken into

consideration all the materials into consideration to come to a finding

that the concerned employee did not admit his guilt in the show cause

reply or even in his evidence which is required to be read as a whole

and held that domestic enquiry was bad on account of violation of

principles of natural justice and that the management failed to prove

the charges against the concerned employee. The findings are well

reasoned and do not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction.

30. So far as the award of 50% back wages is concerned, there is

not much discussion by the learned court. However, the manner in

which the concerned employee has been terminated pursuant to

domestic enquiry conducted in violation of principles of natural justice

and even the management mis-read the findings of the enquiry officer

by wrongly observing that the employee was found guilty of charges

[although the employee was held partly guilty by the enquiry officer] ,

the award of 50% back wages of his last drawn salary [he was

terminated way back on 03.02.2005] does not call for any

interference. Admittedly, the concerned employee has attained the age

of superannuation in the year 2018. In such circumstances, the

concerned employee would be entitled to the back wages only till he

attained the age of superannuation.

31. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

2026:JHHC:25938

23

32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Date of Pronouncement:27.08.2026

Pankaj

Date of uploading: 28.08.2026