Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 458 (JHR)

G. C. Jha v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

2012-03-27

P.P.BHATT

body2012
Order 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. Perused the papers. 3. The petitioners, by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority, dated 26.06.2004 (Annexure-9 series), whereby it was decided to impose the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage in existing scale of pay for a period of six months without cumulative effect in respect of all the petitioners and the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 4/7.9.2004 (Annexure-11 series), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners have also been rejected. The petitioners have also prayed that their cases for future promotion may be considered by the Respondents and for that necessary direction may be given to the Respondents-authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners for the next higher promotion, as and when, it has become due. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been given charge sheet vide Annexure-2 series for having committed misconduct under Clause 38 (ii) sub clause (a) of the Standing Orders of the Respondent-Company. The petitioners have submitted their explanation during the course of enquiry conducted by the inquiry officer and after considering the explanations submitted by the present petitioners, the Inquiry Committee submitted its report. It is further submitted that the Inquiry committee has arrived at the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioners are not proved and the Committee, therefore, hold all the four chargesheeted employees, not guilty. It is further submitted that despite favourable findings given by the inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-7, differed with the findings given by the inquiry authority and issued show cause notice to the petitioners for submitting explanation, if any. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted their explanations and the disciplinary authority vide Annexure 9/1 series, passed an order regarding imposition of penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the existing scale of pay for a period of six months without cumulative effect in respect of the petitioners. It is further submitted that being aggrieved with the said decision, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority also rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioners vide Annexure-11 series. It is further submitted that being aggrieved with the said decision, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority but the appellate authority also rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioners vide Annexure-11 series. It is further submitted that though the said orders have been passed inflicting punishment in the year 2004 for a limited period and without cumulative effect, even then subsequent thereto, the cases of the petitioners have not been considered for higher promotion and therefore, necessary direction may be issued to the Respondents. 5. As against that, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Company submitted that looking to the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioners, the disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the materials on record, reached to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of misconduct alleged against them and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Respondents, there is no error in the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority before reaching to the conclusion, has afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioners for submitting their explanation and after careful consideration of the explanation rendered by the petitioners, the disciplinary authority passed an order inflicting punishment upon the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners also availed the remedy by preferring an appeal and the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been upheld/confirmed by the appellate authority. It is further submitted that these are the finding of facts recorded by the disciplinary authority which has been confirmed by the appellate authority and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the said findings. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a Circular, dated 20th July, 2004 (Annexure-12) issued by the Respondents-Company and by virtue of that circular, the petitioners' cases cannot be considered for future promotion in view of the said Circular. 6. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, requires no interference by this Court as the findings of fact have been recorded by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority after careful consideration of the material on record. So far as grant of future promotion is concerned, the cases of the petitioners are required to be considered in the light of the Policy framed by the Respondent-Company. The Circular vide Annexure-12, referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, indicates that in cases where an order imposing penalty specifies the period of penalty, during the pendency of such period, the employee concerned would not be promoted/confirmed. Thus, looking to the penalty inflicted upon the present petitioners, it appears that the penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the existing pay-scale for a period of six months without cumulative effect was inflicted qua the petitioners and, therefore, the cases of the petitioners, required to be considered subsequent to the period of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. The grievance of the petitioners, prima facie appears to be justifiable to the extent that the cases have not been considered by the Respondents for the subsequent period. Under the circumstances, necessary direction is required to be issued to the Respondent-Company, so that the cases of the present petitioners can be considered for the next higher promotion in the light of the rules, regulations and Company's Policy including Circular, dated 20th July, 2004 (Annexure-12). Accordingly, the petitioners shall submit their representation within six weeks from the date of the order to the Managing Director of the Respondent-Company (Respondent No. 2), justifying their claim for a higher promotion as and when it has become due according to the petitioners. Upon receipt of such representation, the Respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same in the light of the Rules, Regulations and Policy of the Company within a period of four months thereafter. It is further clarified that before taking any final decision in the matter, the petitioners may also be given an opportunity of personal hearing. The decision that may be taken by the Respondent-Company, be also communicated to the petitioners. If Respondent-Company favourably considers the claim, put forward by the petitioners, then in that eventuality their legitimate dues may be released forthwith. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.