Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 239 (JHR)

S. R. Sharma v. Coal India Ltd.

2004-03-04

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The order dated 25.1.2001 contained in Annexure-4 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Central Coalfields Ltd., is under challenge in this writ application whereby the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer made on ad hoc basis, i.e., from Grade E-5 to Grade M-1 was withdrawn. 3. During the period from April, 1995 to January, 1986 the petitioner was posted as the Project Officer at Lapanga Colliery. The Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case against the petitioner and others bearing Case No. R.C.-20/87(R). The matter regarding promotion of the petitioner and other eligible persons to M-1 grade were placed before the Departmental Proceeding Committee and then on the recommendation of the Departmental Proceeding Committee, by issue of Annexure-2 dated 10.5.1995 the petitioner was promoted to M-1 grade with the following conditions :-- (i) This promotion is being made oh ad hoc basis and this ad hoc promotion will not confer any right for regulars promotion and the Company reserves the right to cancel this ad hoc promotion and revert them at any time to the post of Supdt. of Mines from which they were posted to E-6 grade as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer on ad hoc basis. (ii) However, their confirmation or otherwise on the said post will be subject to the outcome/decision in the disciplinary case pending against them vide Order No. CIL/Vig/05210/125/ 3054, dated 8.3.1988 and Order No. CIL/Vig/05205/125/3054, dated 8.3.1988 respectively arising out of CBI Case RC-20/87(R). (iii) The aforesaid ad hoc promotion of the above Officers will be effective on and from the date they assume the charge of the said post at the place of posting after the date of issue of this order. 4. It appears that the petitioner was suspended and a charge-sheet was issued against him regarding stock shortage at Lapanga Colliery and a Departmental proceeding was initiated in which the charges against the petitioner was held to be proved by the enquiry officer. 5. It further appears that the petitioner preferred a writ petition before Calcutta High Court. 4. It appears that the petitioner was suspended and a charge-sheet was issued against him regarding stock shortage at Lapanga Colliery and a Departmental proceeding was initiated in which the charges against the petitioner was held to be proved by the enquiry officer. 5. It further appears that the petitioner preferred a writ petition before Calcutta High Court. Calcutta High Court in its interim order dated 20.1.1992 directed the respondents Coal India Limited to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and to take effective steps pursuant to the enquiry report and pass a final order after giving an opportunity for hearing the petitioner. However, it was observed by the Calcutta High Court that before taking any step pursuant to the final order the Coal India Limited should take leave of the High Court. 6. The directives of Calcutta High Court was implemented, the petitioner was given a copy of the enquiry report and on receipt of the representation filed by the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing was given and thereafter the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, CCL, i.e., the disciplinary authority, considering the gravity of the misconduct, decided to award major penalty of reduction in rank to a lower grade. The said order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was filed before the Calcutta High Court who by order dated 20.8.2000 dismissed the writ application filed by the petitioner and vacated the interim order. 7. Thereafter the petitioner was served with the relevant documents and then the petitioner was asked to submit his representation, if any. The petitioner submitted his representation, and then the Chairman-cum-Managing Director after considering all the relevant materials awarded the penalty of reduction to the next lower grade i.e., from E-5 to E-4 to the petitioner by order dated 30.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has superannuated from service on 28.2.2001 and therefore there was no occasion for withdrawal of his promotion just a day prior to his superannuation that also without disposal of the departmental proceeding or the criminal case against him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has superannuated from service on 28.2.2001 and therefore there was no occasion for withdrawal of his promotion just a day prior to his superannuation that also without disposal of the departmental proceeding or the criminal case against him. From perusal of the Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it appears that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, has considered each and every aspects of the matter and pursuant to the order and direction of Calcutta High Court, after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to defend him, punishment was imposed by reduction of one rank, i.e., from grade E-5 to E-4. 9. I find nothing wrong either in the order as contained in Annexure-4 or as contained in Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit because the promotion given to the petitioner was purely on ad hoc basis and was with certain conditions and therefore the respondent had every power to withdraw the promotion of the petitioner who was punished by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the report in the departmental enquiry. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and thus it is dismissed.