JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. M.M.Pal learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 1.10. 2009 passed by the Personnel Manager, Sirka whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and also prayed for quashing the punishment orders dated 24.9.2007 and 3.10.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Mines(U.G) and also prayed for direction to the respondents not to give effect to the punishment orders dated 24.9.2007 and 3.10. 2008 passed by the Colliery Manager/Supdt of Mines(U.G) and to give all consequential benefits and also prayed for direction to the respondents not to give effect to the appellate order dated 1.10.2009 and to give his due increments which have been stopped by way of punishment and further prayed for direction to the respondents to give effect the promotion order dated 30.9.2008. . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on 3.1.1981 and since then he was in continuous service under the respondents. It is submitted that since the date of initial appointment his work and worth was appreciated by all under whom so ever he had chanced to work and there was no complaint against him from any corner. It is contended that the petitioner was working on the post of overman in Sirka Colliery, Ramgarh. It is further contended that by an order dated 28.4.2007 (charge sheet-cum-suspension) the petitioner was put under suspension specifically stating as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for gross mis-conduct under the provision of the certificate standing orders of C.C.L. By order dated 24.8.2007 the petitioner was directed to file show cause alleging during the course of U/G Inspection Project Manger(U.G) Manager Sirka U.G and Safety Officer, Sirka U/G in third shift of 27.4.2007 at 3.15 A.M found the petitioner was sleeping along with right sides of the first pillar of Sixth East level of upper SEMANA Sem of men near the stopping after putting of his cam lamp and helmet while he was on duty and accordingly directed to file his show cause within a stipulated period and pending enquires into the charges the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 28.4.2007. Thereafter the petitioner filed his show cause on the same day i.e. 28.4.2007 wherein he denied the charges levelled against him, stating specifically that the charges has been framed against him with a view to revenge and the petitioner was threatened earlier to withdraw the complaint made by the petitioner to the Central Labour Minister however it was not withdrawn though requested to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him and requested to recall the suspension order. It is stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said charges. By order dated 10.5.2007 suspension of the pensioner was revoked and he was allowed to join his duties pending enquiry w.e.f. 11.5.2007. It is further submitted that another charge sheet dated 20.7.2007 was issued by the S.O.M Manager, Sirka where it was alleged that by an order dated 10.5.2007 he was allowed to join his duties by revocation of his suspension order but the petitioner did not join his duties and the period from the date was allowed i.e from 11.5.2007 till date i.e. 20.7.2007 is treated as absent from duty and accordingly directed to file show cause on the charge dated 20.7. 2007.Thereafter, the petitioner filed his show cause in which he denied the charges that the alleged charges was vague and baseless and it was issued purposely being biased on the petitioner and accordingly requested to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him. It is contended that without considering the show cause filed by the petitioner, the respondent conducted a departmental enquiry against the petitioner in connection with both the charges with pre-conceived notion only to punish him in numerous ways. It is contended that the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 21.12.2007 but the copy of same was not supplied to the petitioner for which he was seriously prejudiced. It is contended that by a letter dated 20.9.2007 the enquiry officer directed the petitioner to submit his brief form within 15 days from the issue of the letter. It is contended that the petitioner also submitted the brief forms before the concerned authority stating that the charge has not been proved against the petitioner, as such, on the basis of the enquiry report, it was observed, that the charge has been said to be proved with doubt and accordingly, requested him to exonerate him from the charges levelled against him. Pursuant to the show cause filed by the petitioner, respondent conducted departmental enquiry against the petitioner in both the charges. Enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 21.12.2007 in which it was found the petitioner guilty. After submission of the enqury report, the petitioner also filed brief form before the competent authority. It is contended that with respect of Ist charge dated 28.4.2007 Superintendent of Mines by order dated 3.10.2008 punished the petitioner by way of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect by holding him guilty for the chargesheet dated 28.4.2007.It is further submitted that punishment order dated 24.9.2007 in connection with the second charge sheet dated 20.7.2007 as also the punishment order dated 3.10.2008 in connection with first charge dated 28.4.2007 are illegal. It is further stated that Enquiry Officer has opined that charges are proved with doubt. On this extent she argued that charges have not been proved and inspite of that, the petitioner has been punished. So far as 2nd charge is concerned, the same has been found to be true by the Enquiry Officer. She also submits that impugned order has not been issued by the Competent authority and for that she brought a circular dated 1.10.1999 before this court and submits that in respect of Areas of CCL, the Chief General Manager/ General Manager/Project Officers/Colliery Manager will be the competent authority to exercise the powers for implementation of the provisions of Standing order and taking disciplinary action under the provisions of Certified Standing Orders. 4. Mr. A.K.Das learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the enquiry report it was fully proved that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and witnesses have been examined by the management and after examining the statement of the witnesses examined by the management, Enquiry Officer came to that finding. He further submits that Superintendent of Mines is the competent Authority to pass an order of punishment as the petitioner is working on the post of overman. He further submits that the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner along with 2nd show cause and pursuant to that the petitioner replied. Mr.A.K.Das further submits that the petitioner has not been able to show that what prejudiced has been caused upon the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, substance of the argument of Mrs. Pal, so far as charge no. Mr.A.K.Das further submits that the petitioner has not been able to show that what prejudiced has been caused upon the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, substance of the argument of Mrs. Pal, so far as charge no. 1 is concerned, wherein Enquiry Officer has submitted his report and stating that charge is proved with doubt and as such it is clear that so far as first charge is concerned, that has not been proved by the Enquiry Officer and as such Mrs. Pal is able to connivance this court that Ist charge has not been proved by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the order dated 3.10.2009 (Annexure-7) is quashed. So far as the charge no.2 dated 20.7.2007 is concerned, Mrs Pal is not able to point out any irregularity in the enquiry report contained Annexure-N page 152 of the counter affidavit of the respondents. Before this Court also no sufficient explanation was made by the petitioner for being absent w.e.f 11.5.2007 to 29.9.2007 and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the minor punishment for being absent for that period. Enquiry report is well founded and this court finds that so far as the 2nd charge is concerned, it is proved in the enquiry report and the order passed by the Disciplinary authority with respect of 2nd charge is hereby confirmed. This writ petition is allowed in part. 6. Any I.A pending in this writ petition, also stands disposed of. 7. With the above observation this writ petition stands disposed of.