Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 438 (CAL)

KAMAL PRASAD SINGH v. COAL INDIA LIMITED

2000-08-25

ALOKE CHAKRABARTI

body2000
ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : The petitioner came up to this Court with a contention that copy of the enquiry report has been sent to the Appellate Authority, although, Appellate Authority has no roll in the matter of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner as the disciplinary authority itself issued a charge-sheet and under the Rules only disciplinary authority can pass the final order, Reliance was placed on the document annexed to the writ petition in support of such contention. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. P. Sengupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents. As the contentions have been made on the basis of the Rules admittedly applicable in the present case, the respondents agreed to disposal of the writ petition at this stage finally without filing any Affidavit-in-Opposition, though they do not admit the allegation made in the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the Chairman of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited issued a charge sheet against the petitioner and he appointed the Enquiry Officer, In such circumstances, it is stated, action has been taken under paragraph 3 of the Schedule under Rule 27. 0 of the Coal India Executive Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute as regards applicability of the said rules, although, there is a dispute with regard to applicability of the particular provision contained in the said Schedule. For the purpose of convenience, the relevant extract of the said Schedule is quoted hereinbelow:- SCHEDULE UNDER RULE 27. 0 Sl Grade of Disciplinary Penalties which Appellate NO employees Authority it may impose Authority 1 1. CMD & whole-time President of India All penalties President of Directors of CIL and India its subsidiary companies to whom the CIL Executive Con duct, Discipline & Appeal Rules apply, 2 2. (a) All officers in Chairman cum (a) All penalties. Board of Dire Grade E-1 to E-9 Managing Director, cotes, Coal India posted in CIL Head Coal India Ltd. Ltd. quarters, North Eastern Coal fields, Dankuni Coal Complex, Regional/branch Sales/liaison Officers and any other allied office (s)/establishments under the direct admini strative control of Coal India Ltd. (c) All officers in Grade Chairman-cum- (b) All penalties. Board of Dire-E-1 to E-9 posted in Managing Director, Ctors, Coal India subsidiaries. Board of Dire-E-1 to E-9 posted in Managing Director, Ctors, Coal India subsidiaries. Coal India Ltd. Ltd. 3 3. Officers in Grades E-1 Chairman-cum-All penalties chairman-cum-to E-9 posted in Subs.-Managing Director, except II (b) to Managing Director, diary Companies. Coal India Ltd. II (d) Coal India Ltd. ( 5 ) RELYING on the aforesaid rule, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited acts as the Disciplinary Authority, he issues a charge sheet and in such a preceding, he, as a Disciplinary Authority, is entitled to impose all penalties under the rules. But when the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the concerned subsidiary company acts as a Disciplinary Authority and issues a charge sheet, proceeding initiated thereby can be completed by passing a final order only by the said Disciplinary Authority i. e. the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the subsidiary company and in such case he can impose all penalties according to rule except those contained in II (b) to II (d ). In the first case Appellate Authority is Board of Directors of Coal India Limited and in the second case Appellate Authority is Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited. It is further stated that from Rule 29. 2 of the aforesaid Rules, it is apparent that the Disciplinary Authority himself is to form opinion that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth of any imputation of mis-conduct or mis-behaviour against an employee, before an enquiry is initiated. In such view of the matter, it is stated, that, when the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the subsidiary company, issued the charge-sheet it is to be presumed that he formed his opinion according to Rule 29. 2. In such circumstances, before passing any final order by the Disciplinary Authority himself, the matter cannot be referred to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited, who in such case is the Appellate Authority. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended that the question has been considered and decided by the Division Bench in F. M. A. No. 453 of 1997 (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. v. Ram Laxman Prasad Singh and Ors. ). ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended that the question has been considered and decided by the Division Bench in F. M. A. No. 453 of 1997 (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. v. Ram Laxman Prasad Singh and Ors. ). Relying on the aforesaid judgment, it is stated that in identical facts, same question cropped up therein and the matter was decided holding that in such case, the chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited is the appropriate Disciplinary Authority. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid contentions of the respective parties and perusing the judgment referred to by the respondents and also the relevant rules, I find that on facts in this writ petition, admittedly the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the subsidiary company has issued charge-sheet and appointed Enquiry officer presumbly forming opinion himself as required under the Rule 29. 2. It is apparent that in such facts, he has acted as the Disciplinary Authority. If the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the subsidiary company acts as the Disciplinary Authority, he is to complete the proceeding himself by passing an appropriate final order and thereafter the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited will be the Appellate Authority as provided in paragraph 3 of the Schedule of the said Rules. In case the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited was to act as the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the self same charges, he was required to form his opinion as required under Rule 29. 2. I find that in a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the subsidiary company, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited being the Appellate Authority, is not entitled to deal with the proceeding until final order is passed therein and an appeal is preferred. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the judgment in case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Ram Laxman Prasad Singh and Ors. (supra) the Division Bench, although, considered the said provisions in similar facts, but question therein was answered in the factual background that the second charge-sheet therein mentioned that the "competent authority" proposed to impose major penalty and, therefore, it was to be deemed to have been issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited. On such finding, passing of final order by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was approved. On such finding, passing of final order by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was approved. Admittedly the facts in the present writ petition in hand, reference of any proposal by any competent authority is not there. Moreover, question raised in the said appeal as to whether chargesheet was vitiated in its facts. In the present case chargesheet has not been challenged. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench, relied on by the respondents, does not apply here as relevant facts are different. ( 9 ) IN the present case, the Disciplinary Authority being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Limited is the Disciplinary Authority, and, he is only entitled to complete the proceeding by passing any appropriate final order in accordance with law. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited in such factual background, is not entitled to act except as an Appellate Authority when appeal is preferred. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is therefore, allowed. The respondent No. 4 being the Disciplinary Authority is required to complete the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law and till the disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to interfere with the proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Let a xerox copy of this judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be made available to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy thereof on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.