Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1128 (JHR)

Umesh Narayan Prasad v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2002-10-11

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
Judgment M. Y. Eqbal, J.-Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.4.1995 issued under the signature of respondent no. 2, Project Officer, Kathara Washery of respondent no. 1 Central Coalfields Ltd. by which service of the petitioner has been terminated in a departmental proceeding. 2. Petitioner's case inter alia is that while he was working as Store keeper, a charge sheet was served upon him in 1992 alleging that he has tampered and made manipulation in issuing several. vouchers. Petitioner, denied the charges levelled against him by filing show cause. A departmental proceeding was conducted and the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence recorded a finding that the charge has been proved. Consequently a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and finally impugned order of punishment was passed. 3. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of punishment mainly on the ground that the copies of relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner despite repeated demand and the Inquiry Officer recorded his finding in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that even without giving reasonable opportunity of filing show cause the authority passed the impugned order of punishment. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the signatures on the voucher was of Mr. D.K. Ghosh who was made inquiry officer and therefore, the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated in law. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the C.C. Ltd. on the other hand drawn my attention to the relevant documents annexed with the counter affidavit and submitted that the impugned order of punishment was passed after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was satisfied with the inquiry proceeding and he did not raise any objection before him. Petitioner admitted that he did not file second show cause in-spite of receipt of second show cause notice. According to the learned counsel, therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 5. From perusal of the Annexure-1, the memo of charge it appears that in between 1987 and 1992 petitioner alleged to have tampered/manipulated several vouchers. When the departmental proceeding was initiated, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. According to the learned counsel, therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 5. From perusal of the Annexure-1, the memo of charge it appears that in between 1987 and 1992 petitioner alleged to have tampered/manipulated several vouchers. When the departmental proceeding was initiated, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner in his letter dated 13.5.92 (Annexure-4) has admitted that he was served upon the original store copies of requisition and vouchers but some of the vouchers were not shown to him. From the copy of the inquiry proceeding which has been marked as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it appears that the inquiry was concluded on 14.4.94. It is mentioned by the Inquiry Officer in the proceeding that both the parties have stated that they have nothing more to say. Accordingly the inquiry was concluded. Before passing final order of punishment second show cause notice dated 5.4.1995 was given to the petitioner asking him to submit a show cause not later than 13.4.1995. Admittedly petitioner did not file second show cause till 13.4.1995. Respondents thereafter passed the impugned order of punishment which was duly approved by the competent authority. 6. Having regard to the facts discussed hereinabove, I do not find any strong reasons to hold that the order of punishment suffers from serious infirmity or is violative of principles of natural justice. There is also no reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed.