Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 584 (ORI)

Dillip Kumar Dixit v. Coal India Limited

2016-08-01

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of punishment dated 13.6.2002 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. opposite party no.4, disciplinary authority, vide Annexure-10 as well as the order dated 18.2.2003 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Appellate Authority, opposite party no.2 confirming the same, vide Annexure-12. An ancillary prayer has been made to accord permission to Grade E-5 when his juniors were promoted and to rectify the seniority list. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioner is that while functioning as Senior Executive Engineer (Civil), a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for committing certain malfeasance and misfeasance. Pursuant to issuance of charge-sheet, he filed show cause. The enquiry officer submitted the report stating therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not established, but then the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who is the disciplinary authority, opposite party no.4, asked him to show cause. The petitioner filed show cause. On 13.6.2002 the disciplinary authority without assigning any reason imposed a major punishment of “reduction of pay by one stage in the existing time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulating effect”, vide Annexure-10. Assailing the said order of punishment, he filed appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Appellate Authority, opposite party no.2. The said appeal was dismissed. With this factual scenario, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite parties is that while the petitioner was working as Senior Executive Engineer (Civil) at B.I.T. in the year, 1997, the work order was issued on 14.8.1997 in favour of one M/s. Shamalal Agarwal for widening of existing roads, providing pathways etc. in Bandhabahal Colony of IB. Valley Area, under Mahanadi Coalfields Limited-opposite party no.3 for a cost of Rs.84,92,949.60. The said work order was issued by the General Manager (Construction), Burla, i.e., from the headquarters of MCL. The petitioner was in charge of the said widening of road. The agreement was executed on 26.8.1997. As per the said agreement, the metal to be used was hard granite stone metal of size 40mm. to 65 mm and stone chips of hard granite. The petitioner was in charge of the said widening of road. The agreement was executed on 26.8.1997. As per the said agreement, the metal to be used was hard granite stone metal of size 40mm. to 65 mm and stone chips of hard granite. The conditions in the agreement were based on the schedule of rates issued by M.C.L. for road works, 1996. On being informed about the construction of road that the substandard materials have been used, on 23.1.1998 the Executive Director of Vigilance of M.C.L. conducted a surprise inspection at the work site in presence of other officials including the petitioner and the contractor and also collected samples from the road. The said samples were sent to University College of Engineering, Burla for necessary test. As per the report of the experts from University College of Engineering, Burla, the size of the materials used in the widening of roads were much lower in size than that of the specifications and the stones used are not hard granite. After getting the report, opposite party no.3 initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner by issuing a memorandum of charges, vide letter dated 16.3.2001, vide Annexure-5. In the said letter, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within fifteen days from the date of receipt of memorandum of charges. He submitted his reply. The same being not satisfactory, the enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer enquired into the matter by affording opportunity to the petitioner and submitted its report on 29.9.2001 exonerating the petitioner from all charges. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued show cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the inquiry report. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his reply. On taking a holistic view of the matter, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment. The petitioner challenged the same before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. 4. Heard Mr.U.K.Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Biswa Mohan Pattnaik, learned Sr.Advocate along with Mr.Rakesh Sharma, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. 5. Mr.Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service conditions of the employees of M.C.L. are governed under the Coal India Executives’ Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). 4. Heard Mr.U.K.Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Biswa Mohan Pattnaik, learned Sr.Advocate along with Mr.Rakesh Sharma, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. 5. Mr.Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service conditions of the employees of M.C.L. are governed under the Coal India Executives’ Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 30.4 of the Rules provides that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer, it will record its own findings and record the reasons for disagreement. He further submitted that the enquiry officer submitted the report stating therein that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not established. Since the disciplinary authority has not concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer, it ought to have assigned reasons. However, no reasons have been assigned. Thus, the order is liable to be interfered with. The appellate authority has mechanically confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 6. Rule 30.0 of the Rules provides action on the inquiry report. The same is quoted hereunder:- “30.0 ACTION ON THE INQUIRY REPORT 30.1 The Disciplinary Authority, if it is different from the Inquiring Authority shall, before making a final order in the case, forward a copy of the inquiry report to the employee concerned with the following endorsement- “The report of the Inquiry Officer is enclosed. The Disciplinary Authority will take a suitable decision after considering the report. If you wish to make any representation or submission, you may do so in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days of the receipt of this letter". 30.2 On receipt of the reply of the employee, or if no reply is received within the time allowed, the Disciplinary Authority will examine the report and the records of the inquiry including the reply received from the employee, if any, and will record its findings in respect of each article of charge saying whether, in its opinion, it stands proved or not. 30.3 If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, it will, while recording its own findings, also record the reasons for its disagreement.” xx xx xx” 7. 30.3 If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, it will, while recording its own findings, also record the reasons for its disagreement.” xx xx xx” 7. On a cursory perusal of Rule 30.3 of the Rules, it is evident that in the event the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, it will record its own findings. A duty is cast upon the disciplinary authority to assign reasons for its disagreement. The enquiry officer submitted the report, vide Annexure-7, stating therein that charges levelled against the petitioner are not established. But then the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., who is the disciplinary authority, did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and, accordingly, issued a show cause notice. The petitioner filed his reply. By order dated 13.6.2002, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment. On a bare perusal of the said order, it is evident that the same is a laconic one. The order is bereft of any reasons. Thus, the disciplinary authority abdicated its quasi judicial function. 8. In view of the foregoing discussions, the inescapable conclusion is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, vide Annexure-10, and the order of the appellate authority, vide Annexure-12, are not sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, both the orders are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority shall assign reasons and pass necessary order within a period of three months. 9. The petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.