Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 930 (JHR)

S. N. Tripathi v. Coal India Limited

2002-08-28

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.12.1994 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL) by which the petitioner has been demoted to next lower grade for a period of two years in a departmental proceeding and further for quashing the appellate order dated 18.1.1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Chairman, Coal India Ltd.) by which the punishment given by the disciplinary authority has been reduced to the extent of demotion to the next lower grade for a period of one year. 3. The petitioner was working on the post of Agent E-5 scale under the respondents since 1988. In 1993 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the Director Technical, BCCL in which two charges were levelled against him alongwith two other officers, namely, Sri R.R. Tewary, Senior Mining Engineer and Sri S.K. Sinha, Manager. The charges were that they failed to maintain devotion to duty and their was negligence in the performance of duty. The charges are based on the allegations that they failed to carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in Mines and Regulations Act and the Rules made thereunder. It was further alleged that during the period of negligence causality took place in the Mines. All the three officers submitted their show-cause and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them. One Mr. R.V. Eradey, General Manager (Enquiries) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after hearing the parties submitted a detailed inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer held that charges against the two officers, namely. Senior Mining Engineer and the Manager has been partly proved, inasmuch as they failed to exercise sufficient control over the subordinate staff with respect to the enforcement of the above regulations. However, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges of misconduct against the petitioner has not been proved. After submission of the charge-sheet, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director being the disciplinary authority after giving liberty of hearing to the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment by demoting him to the next lower grade for a period of 2 years. However, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges of misconduct against the petitioner has not been proved. After submission of the charge-sheet, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director being the disciplinary authority after giving liberty of hearing to the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment by demoting him to the next lower grade for a period of 2 years. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal and the appellate authority reduced the punishment to demotion to the next lower grade for a period of 1 year. 4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned orders of punishment as being illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel submitted that when the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer he has first to record reasons of such disagreement and ought to have served it upon the petitioner for filing their show-cause/representation. It was only thereafter that the disciplinary authority should have passed order of punishment after recording a conclusive finding to the effect that on the basis of evidence charges have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has not adopted this procedure and therefore, the order of punishment can not be sustained in law. Learned counsel in this regard relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (1999) 7 SCC 84 which principles was followed in subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the employees of the respon-dent-BCCL are covered by their own service conditions, rules and the regulations under which the disciplinary authority has the power to record its own finding on the basis of the evidence on the record, of course after giving opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee. Learned counsel further submitted that In view of Section 18 of Mines Act, the agent can not and shall not be exonerated from his responsibility and the disciplinary authority rightly held on the basis of evidence that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to perform his duty for the safety of mine and therefore the penalty imposed is just and proper. 6. 6. From perusal of the inquiry report it appears that no specific evidence was adduced as against the petitioner about his negligence. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, came to the conclusion that the charges as against the petitioner has not been proved. Admittedly the disciplinary authority before recording his own finding neither supplied to the petitioner the reasonings how he differs and disagreed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned order of punishment gave personal hearing to all the three officer including the petitioner. The copy of minutes dated 18.12.1994, filed by the respondents, is annexed as An-nexure-A to the counter affidavit. It the said Minutes it is mention that the disciplinary authority himself issued instruction to all the officers for putting the roof bolting for all the development headings must be supported by roof bolts upto the working face. The disciplinary authority further mentioned in the said minutes that all the three officials agreed that they did not provide roof bolting for the reasons mentioned therein. Admittedly this minutes was not recorded in presence of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner and the two officers are not the signatories of the minutes. There is no evidence much less supporting evidence to suggest that the petitioner admitted before the disciplinary authority that he was also negligent in the discharge of his duties. The counter affidavit has been sworn by one Sri K. Prasad Dy. Legal Manager who affirmed para 13 of the counter affidavit as true to his knowledge. The deponent of the counter affidavit was not present at the time when the discussion was held with the disciplinary authority or when the minutes was prepared and therefore it can not be said to be true to the knowledge of the deponent that the delinquent admitted and agreed before the disciplinary authority about his negligence. Be that as it may, as stated above, the disciplinary authority has not followed the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court as regards the duty of the disciplinary authority when he proposes to differ with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Since the same has not been done the order of punishment Imposed upon the petitioner can not be sustained in law. Since the same has not been done the order of punishment Imposed upon the petitioner can not be sustained in law. It is made clear here that the order of punishment so far the petitioner is concerned is set aside mainly for the reasons that the petitioner was completely exonerated from the charges by the Inquiry Officer. 7. So far the second relief sought for by the petitioner with regard to his claim for promotion is concerned, I am of the opinion, that this Court can not issue any direction to the respondent for giving him promotion to the next higher post. Admittedly causality took place in the Mines and some of the workmen have died. Section 18 of the Mines Act imposes certain reasona-bility upon the officers Including the agent. It is, therefore, the authority of the respondent who should first be satisfied with the performance of the petitioner before considering his case for promotion to the next higher grade. In my opinion, therefore it is for the authorities of the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher grade and take a decision in accordance with law. 8. The writ application is, therefore, allowed in part and the order of punishment is set aside.