Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 752 (JHR)

Gopal Prasad v. Central Coal Fields Limited

2015-07-06

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
Order In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Reference No. 1027-36 dated 7/8.5.2004, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been found guilty in a departmental proceeding and awarded punishment of demotion to next below grade as loading clerk Gr.-II with immediate effect and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 3698-5878/-. It has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of arrears under the voluntary retirement scheme to the post of loading inspector Gr.-I along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner while he was posted as Assistant Inspector in Sirka Colliery of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. (CCL) was suspended vide letter No. 9833 dated 28/30.11.1998 by the respondent No. 2. A charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner for the following charges:- "That on 26/27.11.98, a road sale truck bearing No. BR-36/8727 loaded with coal was caught near Argada More at about 11.20. On verification of records, it has been observed that you had not properly handed over the balanced empty trucks on 26.11.90 either to the Security personnel or the Munshi on duty. It has also been observed that proper records of handing over the charge of balance trucks and the timings of entry as well as out going road sale trucks are not being maintained properly at the loading site." 3. On being asked to submit an explanation, the same was submitted by the petitioner and on finding the same to be unsatisfactory it was decided to hold an enquiry. On culmination of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted to the respondent No. 2 and thereafter vide letter as contained in Memo No. 16759 dated 6/9/.2.2004, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. A show cause reply was submitted by the petitioner and ultimately vide office order No. 1027-36 dated 7/8.5.2004, the respondent No. 2 imposed a punishment of demotion to next below grade upon the petitioner in the service of the company to loading clerk Gr.-II with immediate effect. The petitioner had also applied for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was relieved from the services of the company w.e.f. 16.10.2004. 4. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The petitioner had also applied for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner was relieved from the services of the company w.e.f. 16.10.2004. 4. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the departmental proceeding conducted was perfunctory in nature and the petitioner was deprived of putting forward his defence in absence of he being served with the sealed register and documents when demanded, which could have proved the innocence of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the enquiry report was never served upon the petitioner which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and in such circumstances the entire departmental proceedings has been vitiated and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the procedural aspect of the departmental proceedings was fully complied with and the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to explain his defence including the submission of enquiry report to the petitioner before the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. It has also been submitted that both the charges were very grave, but lenient view was taken by the management while awarding punishment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further adds that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of taking recourse to appeal in terms of the provisions as contained in Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Order of the Company and without exhausting alternative remedy the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his argument on the point that the enquiry report was never served upon the petitioner which vitiated the departmental proceedings, as the petitioner did not have an appropriate opportunity to look into the findings of the enquiry officer and thereafter submit his show cause reply. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is ill-founded in view of the specific averment made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice wherein a copy of the enquiry report was also forwarded to him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is ill-founded in view of the specific averment made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice wherein a copy of the enquiry report was also forwarded to him. This contention of the respondents is further substantiated by the supplementary show cause reply submitted by the petitioner on 20.2.2004 in which based on the enquiry report he had tried to demolish the findings of the same. The enquiry report has been discussed in detail in the supplementary reply to the second show cause notice and in such circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner was not served with the enquiry report. In view of the specific averment made by the respondents in their counter affidavit which also finds support from the supplementary reply to the show cause dated 20.2.2004 submitted by the petitioner, the contention made with respect to the non-supply of the enquiry report is absolutely frivolous and misconceived. 8. Since the enquiry report has established the guilt of the petitioner resulting in imposition of punishment upon him and the principles of natural justice having been adhered to, there remains no circumstance to interfere in the departmental proceedings as well as the order of punishment. 9. The prayer of the petitioner with respect to difference of arrears arising out of the voluntary retirement scheme by treating the post of the petitioner as loading inspector Gr-I, is apparently dependent on the first prayer of the petitioner which relates to quashing of the order of punishment. Since it has been indicated aforesaid that no case for interference has been made out by the petitioner with respect to his first prayer, the prayer with respect to payment of arrears automatically fails. 10. As result of the discussions made above, there is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.