Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1036 (JHR)

N. K. Srivastava v. Chairman, Coal India Ltd.

2003-08-23

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
ORDER 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner against the memorandum, reference No. WCL/CMD/ VIG/777 dated 17th July, 2003 issued by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Western Coal-fields Ltd., Nagpur whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of reduction to the lower stage at Rs. 19,500/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 19,500/- 25,000/- be not imposed on him. 2. According to petitioner, the disciplinary authority cannot record the final finding on the charges at the time of issuing show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority having already decided to reduce the petitioner to the lower stage, having made up the mind to punish the petitioner, the second show- cause notice should be quashed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739 ; Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84 ; SBI and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla, reported in 2001 (4) Supreme Today 496 and the decision of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in Ramesh Prasad Gupta v. Chief Manager, State Bank of India and Ors., reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 504 . 4. For proper appreciation of the case, it is desirable to refer the show- cause notice, which reads as follows :-- "Ref. No. WCL/CMD/V1G/777 dated 17.7.2003 MEMORANDUM In continuation of Memorandum No. WCL/CMD/VIG/87, dated 18.1.2002 issued to Shri N.K. Srivastava, the then Chief Engineer (Civil)/Staff Officer (Civil), WCL, Wanl North Area (presently posted in BCCL) a Departmental inquiry had been instituted by appointing an Inquiring Authority and a Presenting Officer. The findings of Inquiring Authority into above Memorandum is enclosed herewith as Annexure-I. 2. On careful consideration of the Inquiry Report aforesaid, the undersigned agrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and holds that the Articles of Charge are proved/partly proved. The undersigned has, therefore, provisionally come to the conclusion that the penalty of reduction to the lower stage at Rs. 19,500/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 19,500/- 25,000/-may be imposed on Shri Shrivastava for the remaining period of his service as he is retiring on 30.9.2003. 3. The advice sought on aforesaid tentative penalty from CVC is also enclosed as Anneuxre-II (Vide Memorandum No. 001/COL/016, dated 8th July, 2003) with views of undersigned. 19,500/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 19,500/- 25,000/-may be imposed on Shri Shrivastava for the remaining period of his service as he is retiring on 30.9.2003. 3. The advice sought on aforesaid tentative penalty from CVC is also enclosed as Anneuxre-II (Vide Memorandum No. 001/COL/016, dated 8th July, 2003) with views of undersigned. 4. Shri Shrivastava is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry. Any representation, which he may wish to make on the penalty proposed, will be considered by the undersigned. Such representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memorandum by Shri Shrivastava. 5. The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged. SD/- Ashok Mehta Chairman-cum-Managing Director Disciplinary Authority" 5. From the aforesaid show-cause notice, it will be evident that the disciplinary authority only provisionally came to the conclusion that the penalty of reduction to the lower stage may be imposed, if sufficient ground is not shown by the charged-employee. 6. The cases referred by petitioner are different. In those cases, the authorities differed with the finding of the enquiry officer but no reason was given nor any opportunity given to the charged-employee. 7. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739 , the Supreme Court noticed the facts and observed as fellows :-- "It is true that the along with the show cause notice, the reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary Committee had disagreed with the findings of the District Judge were communicated to the appellant but the Disciplinary Committee instead of forming a tentative opinion had come to a final conclusion that the charges against the appellant were established." 8. It is well settled law that no reason requires to be given if the disciplinary authority agrees with the finding of the enquiry officer. The authority is only required to give show cause notice if agrees with the finding of the enquiry officer. If the disciplinary authority forms tentative opinion and communicate it to the charged-employee, it cannot be held to be illegal. 9. There being no merit in this case, the writ petition is dismissed.