Ravi Shankar Mahant and others v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others), whereby the writ
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.06 18:27:40 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 880 of 2024 2025:CGHC:570-DB NAFR 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman - Cum Managing Director Seepat Road Bilaspur C.G. Pin 495006 Chhattisgarh (As Per Cause Tittle of The Writ Petition ) 2 - Chief General Manager Secl Baikunthpur Area PO Baikunthpur District - Koriya District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager Secl Church West Colliery PO Baikunthpur District - Koriya Pin 497335 District - Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Ravi Shankar Mahant S/o Late Shyamlal Age About 26 Years Rmapur Colony Po Baikunthpur District - Koriya Chhattisgarh (As Per
Decision
Cause Title of The Writ Petition) 2 - Shanti Devi W/o Late Shyamlal Aged About 45 Years R/o Rampur Colony PO Baikuthpur Ps Baikunthpur District - Koriya Pin 497335 District - Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv Shankar Mahant S/o Late Shyamlal Aged About 31 Years R/o Rampur Colony Po Baikunthpur Ps Baikunthpur District - Koriya Cg Pin 497335 Through Legal Guardian Shanti Devi W/o Late Shyamlal Rampur Colony Baikuthpur District Koriya Cg District - Koriya (Baikunthpur( Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 For Appellants : Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh and Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “1. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated 02-08-2024 passed by the Single Bench of this High Court, in W.P.(S) No.2143/2024 and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner’s. 2. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2143 of 2013 (Ravi Shankar Mahant and others v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others), whereby the writ 3 petition filed by the writ petitioners/respondents are allowed. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioners/respondents before the learned Single Judge is that respondent No.3 was appointed as a Dependent Employee under the appellants on 28.11.2000 on compassionate grounds. In the year 2001, respondent No. 3 met with an accident and lost mental balance.He was referred to the psychiatric department in Regional Hospital, Gevra on 27.03.2002. On 03.01.2003, he was again referred and the report would show that the he was a patient of Schizophrenia. On 18.01.2005, respondent No.3 was again referred to Regional Hospital, Gevra. Respondent No. 2, who is the mother of respondent No. 3, made a representation to refer respondent No.3 to Apex Medical Board to declare him medically unfit and requested to provide dependent employment to any dependent(s). On 24.07.2006, respondent No.3 appeared before the Medical Board and there is a certificate in this regard but no opinion was given with regard to the fitness of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 was missing, his whereabouts were not known to anyone thereafter, a complaint was lodged by respondent No.1 in this regard. The police found respondent No. 3 and he was brought home. Respondent No. 3 again appeared before the Medical Board on 15.12.2009 and he again went missing and thereafter, an article of charges was issued against him. No reply was filed to the article of charges. A departmental enquiry was 4 conducted and finally, the punishment of removal on account of unauthorized absence was passed on 22.03.2011. Respondent No.3 participated in the proceeding but since he was not mentally fit, he could not defend his case. In the departmental enquiry, he appeared and stated that on account of his mental illness, he was not in a position to work regularly under the respondents and he produced medical documents in this regard. It was also stated by respondent No. 3 that his matter was referred to the medical board to declare him medically unfit as he was unable to discharge his duties. Thereafter, a final order was passed terminating him on 22.03.2011. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.2 which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.03.2013. 5. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the appellants, the writ petitioners/respondents have preferred a writ petition being WPS No.2143 of 2013, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 02.08.2024 observing that in the absence of any finding with regard to the willful absence of respondent No.3, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, both the orders dated 22.03.2011 & 16.03.2013 are hereby quashed. The appellants were directed to consider the claim of the respondents with regard to dependent employment after getting the opinion from the Apex Medical 5 Board with regard to the mental status of respondent No. 3. The exercise should be completed by the appellants preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, respondent No.3 would be at liberty to claim permissible medical leave and other leave as per service rules. The appellants were directed to consider the claim of respondent No.3 strictly in accordance with law. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law and no disputed question of facts are involved requiring evidence but without considering the entirety of the aspects and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned 6 Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order while relying upon the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- “16. In the case of appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion of duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a Government servant. The question whether `unauthorised absence from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling 7 circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 18. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 19. In the present case the Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold the absence is wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.” 11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in observing that there is no finding recorded 8 by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority that the absence of respondent No.3 was willful and further, the compelling circumstances under which respondent No. 3 could not join the services were not taken into consideration. In the departmental proceeding, if there is an allegation of unauthorized absence from duty, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence was willful and in the absence of such findings, the absence would not amount to misconduct and the punishment in the absence of such finding would be erroneous and bad in law. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 13. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu