Shriv Murti Shukla v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Another), whereby
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.05.03 11:38:16 +0530 2025:CGHC:20124-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 289 of 2025 Shiv Murti Shukla S/o Shri Rampyare Shukla Aged About 56 Years Senior Surveyor Under Suspension, Bagdewa, U G Mine, S E C L, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Presently Posted As Senior Surveyor, Gevra, Project, South Eastern Goalfields Limited, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. 2. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chief Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Colliery Manager, Bagdewa U G Mines, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, ...Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Appellant For Respondents : Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate. : Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 02 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Bidya Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant has filed the writ appeal with the following prayers:- 2 “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and be pleased to set-aside the Order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure A/1) and pass suitable Order quashing the impugned suspension order dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) and impugned charge-sheet dated 09.12.2016 (Annexure P/2) as prayed in the main petition.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 596 of 2017 (Shriv Murti Shukla vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited & Another), whereby the learned Single Judge has
Decision
dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was posted as Senior Surveyor at Bagdeva UG Mines, SECL Korba Area Dist. Korba (CG). He was implicated in a false complaint made by a contractor to CBI which conducted a raid in his house alleging receiving of illegal gratification and arrested him on 19.09.2016. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the learned Special Judge, CBI (Raipur) and he was granted bail on 17.11.2016 by the aforesaid Court. He further submits that the appellant serves in Wage Board Cadre 3 applicable as per National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The appellant at the relevant time of the case against him was acquired status of Technical & Supervisory Grade A-1 being the Senior Surveyor. His services for the purpose of disciplinary rules are guided by the “Certified Standing Order” of SECL, certified by the Regional Labour Commissioner (RLC), Bombay in terms with the provisions under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 5. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 2 issued an order of Suspension of the appellant dated 29.10.2016, which was given retrospective effect from 16.09.2016. The relevant portion of the suspension order dated 29.10.2016 is quoted below:- “Now, therefore, the said Shri Shiv Murti Shukla, Sr. Surveyor/Colliery Surveyor of Bugdeva UG Mine Korba Area is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of his detention in custody i.e. 16.09.2016 in terms of Clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Order of SECL and shall remain under suspension until further order and formal charge sheet will follow.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the said suspension order did not mention the authority/powers conferred on the respondent No. 2 viz. Colliery Manager to issue the impugned 4 suspension order dated 29.10.2016. In fact, respondent No. 2 was never conferred with the powers of the Disciplinary Authority or any specific powers delegated to him to suspend the appellant, who was a Sr. Surveyor. The suspension order was thus issued without any jurisdiction by the respondent No. 2, and therefore, bad in law being nonest. thereafter, respondent No. 2 i.e. the Colliery Manager issued impugned charge-sheet dated 09.12.2016 in Hindi vernacular to the appellant. He also contended that the covering memo of the impugned charge-sheet was signed by the Colliery Manager/respondent No. 2 without mentioning his jurisdiction, delegation of authority and powers conferred on him as competent authority under the said Certified Standing Order to issue the impugned charge-sheet. Further, the said covering memo of the charge-sheet enclosed with it a ‘DRAFT’ Article of charge to be framed against the appellant and a ‘DRAFT’ statement of imputation in support of the Article of charge to be framed against the appellant typed in English. It also included Hindi translation of the said article and imputation of charge. But, the said enclosures i.e. Article of charge and the imputation based on which article of charge were to be framed did bear signature of any authority neither the Colliery Manager, nor the Disciplinary Authority under the Certified Standing Order. He would submit that the charge memo did not include any list of witness and list of documents in support of the Article of Charge neither the Articles were framed nor the imputation of charge were finalized for comprehension and reply in defence by the appellant. The appellant was directed to submit his representation against the said covering 5 memo/charge-sheet within 72 hours, but appellant was neither served with the definite article of charge nor the statement of imputation duly approved and signed by the Disciplinary Authority so that the appellant can comprehend the matter against him for rebuttal and defence. The charge-sheet, therefore, lacked in (i) jurisdiction of the issuing authority i.e. respondent No. 2; Colliery Manager, Bugdeva UG Mine and (ii) issued without definite article of charge, imputation in support of the article of charge, list of document and list of witness which are the essential ingredients of a valid charge-sheet/charge memo failing which the charge-sheet is treated as vague charge-sheet apart from its non- maintainability since having been issued without jurisdiction by incompetent authority. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had not raised the ground that the Colliery Manager is not authorized in Certified Standing Orders in his reply. It is submitted that whereas the appellant had raised this ground in his representations dated 07.03.2017 and 10.04.2017, therefore, order of rejection of the petition has caused injustice to the appellant. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in not considering the fact that the Article of Charge and statement of imputation have not been signed by the competent authority, which was raised by the appellant in his reply to charge-sheet. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2025 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 6 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the respondent authorities have passed an order on 28.04.2025, by which, the appellant has been terminated from the services. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 10. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon Clause 28.9 of the Standing Orders issued in respect of the S.E.C.L., has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “7. Since, the petitioner was, prima facie, found to be involved while taking the illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration from the complainant on 16.09.2016 and, the case has, thus, been registered against him while detaining him under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, therefore, in view of the aforesaid clause, he has been placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 29.10.2016 with effect from 16.09.2016, the date when he was detained. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in it. Be 7 that as it may, the alleged suspension order has been revoked subsequently by the concerned respondent authority vide order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure R-7). In view of such circumstances, the alleged grievance of the petitioner, thus, no more subsists. 8. Besides, it is to be seen, as reflected from the Office order (Annexure P-4) issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL on 31.03.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Clause 28 of the Certified Standing Orders, that all the Colliery Managers, including the respondent No.2, has been authorized to act as a disciplinary authority for charge-sheeting in respect of the workmen working or posted to work for the time being in the unit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2, who issued the impugned charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) on 09.12.2016 followed by his suspension, was not the competent authority, as alleged by the petitioner herein. Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner, that in the statements of imputation, certain relevant spaces are found to be blank is, 8 however, noted to be rejected in view of the copies of Hindi Translation made in this regard, where, I do not find any entries, as such, are blank. In any case, the entire allegations made in the petition were, however, not found to be raised by the petitioner in his reply (Annexure P-9) to the alleged charge-sheet. 9. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any substance in this petition, so as to call for any interference in the alleged suspension order (Annexure P-1), followed by the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2). The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.” 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant has already been terminated from the services vide order dated 28.04.2025, the remedy lies to the appellant to file appropriate petition before appropriate forum. 12. In view of the above, instant writ appeal is dismissed without merit substance. However, the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu