Writ Petition No. 25550 of 2021 · The High Court · 2025

THE HONBI,E TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KI'MARSINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.355 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collierir:s Company Limited appearing for respondent Nos. i to 3, Sri K.Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the dated 30.12.2024 passed by the iearned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.2555O of 2027. The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with W.p.No.23141 of 2021 whereb,v the learned Single Judge i) allowed W.P.No.25550 of 2O2l lrled by respondent No.4 herein and has set aside the orders granting notional promotions to the appellant in regard to the post of Manager (Forestry) Grade-VI w.e.f. O1.O4.2O17 and also in regard to the post of Deputy General Manager, Grade-VII w.e.f. O 1 .O5.2O2 1. The appellant herein, who is respondent No.4 in W.P.No.2555O of 2O2l challenges the 2 directions issued by the learned Single Judge particularly in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 o[ the said order dated 30.12.2024 which directs the official respondents to modify the punishment imposed upon the appellant and to reconsider the case of the appellant for promotion after the modification of the punishment order and ii) dismissed W.P.No.23 141 of 2027 liled by the appellant herein inter alia challenging the action of respondent No.1-Singareni Collieries Company Limjted, in not considering and disposing the representation dated

04.O8.2021 made by the appellant herein for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Forestry) in E_VII Grade w.e.f. 01.O4.2O2O and consequenr_ly to direct respondent No.l-Company to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Genera-l Manager (Forestry) in E-VII Grade w.e.f. 01.O,+.2O2O.

3. The case of the appellan[ herein/ respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.25550 of 2O2l was that he was a.ppointed on 16.06.2001 as Junior Manager in E-l Grade, he r.,r.as promoted to E-II Grade on 07.10.2004 as Forest Ofhcer, he was further promoted to E-lll Grade on 07.17.2OO7 as Senior Forest Officer, E-IV Grade on 07.O4.2O11 and E_V on 01.04.2014 as eqputy r\ \i , .; J Manager and he became eligible to Manager (Forestry) E-VI Grade w.e.f. 01.O4.2017, but due to pending disciplinary proceedings, his promotion was kept in a sealed cover.

4. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant herein concluded with a fuarning letter, dated

29.07.2019. Subsequently, the sealed cover was opened and the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Manager (Forestry) in E-VI Grade notionally w.e.f. 27 .ll.2}l} by office order on 06.08.2019 and allowing the monetary benefits from

06.08.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Company in not promoting the appellant herein w.e.f. the date of his eiigibility i.e., 01.O4.2O17, the appellant approached this Court by hling W.P.No.2O233 of 2O2O. However, during the pendency of W.P.No.2O233 of 2O2O, the appellant was issued with office order dated O8.12.2O2O modifying the office order dated

06.08.2019 and informing the appellant that the date of promotion in the pay scale of Rs.90,000-Rs.2,4O,O00 (E-VI Grade) may be read as O1.04.2O17 (Notional) instead of 27 .11.2O1a. The appellant was promoted as Deput5r General Manager (Forestry) in E-VII Grade by ofhce order dated I I 4

23.07 .2021 w.e.f. O 1.O5.2O2 1 allowing monetary benefit w.e.f.

14.o7.2021

6. Aggrieved by the promotion of the appellant herein to Grade-VI w.e.f. 01 .O4.2 OIZ (by office order) and oromoting the appellant to Grade-VII w.e.f. 01.05.2021 (by offrce order dated), respondent No.4 herein frled W.p.No.25550 of 2021 1 challenging the notionai promotion of the appellant w.e.f. Ol.O,I.2OlZ.

7. The appellant made a representation dated O4.Og.2O2l to the respondents contending that he became eligible for promotion to E-VII Grade w.e.f. OL.O4.2O2O by restoration of notional senioriqr from Ol.O4.2O1Z and rr:quested for consideration for promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2020. llhe appellant filed W.P.No.23l4I of 2O2l challenging the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated O4.O8.2O21 for promotion to the post of DGM (Fore.stry) in E_VII Grade w.e.f..0 I.O4.2O2O.

8. The learned Single Judge as noted above by common order dated 30.12.2024. dismissed W.p.No.23141 of 2O2t filed by the appellant and allowed W.p.No.25550 of 2021 hled by respondent No.4 wherein it was held that the warning letter dated 29 .O7 .20 19 issued to the appellant herein was not in accordance with Rule 14.11 of Executive promotion Rirles, I ,.I t. / t ) I which mandate that atleast a penalty of tensure, for partially proved charges. Further, the iearned Single Judge also has set aside the appellant's promotion order and directed the respondents to modify the punishment awarded to the appellant to 'censure' based on the trxecutive Promotion Rules and thereafter directed to consider the appellant's promotion. Submissions of the a ellant:

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that: i) the learned Single Judge erred in applying Executive Promotion Rules to disciplinary proceedings which are governed by SCCL Executive Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2O21 (for short, 'CD&A RulesJ. ii) though a warning is not a prescribed penalty under the CD&A Rules, it is an administrative action and the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to issue a warning without invoking formal penalties. iii) reslrondent No.4, being a third party, has no locus standi to challenge the penal[r awarded to the appellant. iv) the direction of the learned Single Judge to modify the punishment and to reconsider the promotion after 6 modification of the punishment effectively directs the respondent-Company to impose a formal penalty, however the Disciplinary Authority has chosen to caution the appellant by issuing a tarning', which is beyond the scope of judiciat review under Article '.226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the penalties are governed by the SCCL ExecutLve Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules which operate in different areas and the learned Single Judge erred in directing the modihcation of the punishment based on the Executive Promotion Rules. Learned Senior Counsel also contends that the learned Singie Judge exceeded the bounds of judicial rr:view under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has further contended that the power to impose punishment lies with the disciplinary authority. Learned Senior Counsel also found fault wittr the finding of the learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 .eerein being an affected party should ought to have been given a notice before the modification of appellant's promotion ortler and aiso contended that the same is without any legal basis. Further, the iearned Senior Counsel for the appellant assertr:d that once 7 a 'sealed cover' promotion decision is hnalised after disciplinary proceedings, the beneht of the promotion can be extended even without providing notice to other employees. Submissions on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3:

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Company contended that i) as per the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, 'DPC) the appellant therein has been promoted to Manager (Forestry) in E- VI Grade w.e.f . OI.O4.2O17. ii) the appellant was issued a warning letter dated 3I.O7.2O19 and that the imposition of penalties to a delinquent is in the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority of tJle respondent-Company. iii) after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on

12.12.2016 by following sealed cover procedure as recommended for the promotion of the appellant herein to E-VI Grade. Subsequently, on the completion of three years in E-VI Grade, the appeliant was promoted to E-VII Grade w.e.f. 07.O5.2O27. 8 i") there was no deviation of any Ruie by thr: respondent Company and the Departmental promotion Committee guidelines were strictly followed. v) vi) right from the date of appointment, respondent No.4 herein was junior to the appellant. the allegation of respondent No.4 that tht: respondent Company unduly favoured the appellant is baseless and incorrect. Submissions of resDOndent No.4:

11. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that i) the disciplinary authorit5r is bound try the Rules governing disciplinary matters and cannot impose the penalty of tvarning, which is not prescribed by the CD&A Rules. ii) that in the warning letter dated 29.O2.2OI9 at para Nos.4 and 5 held as foilows: "O4. The Enqtiry Offi.cer has submitted his report giuing findings that the articles of charges leuelled against you under Clause No.5(9) read uith 4.1 of CD&A Rules of the Company are proued. l -/ // 9

05. Though the misconduct committed bg you, in fact, utarrants imposition of penaltg under CD&A Rules, after careful consideration the En-quiry Proceeding, Enquiry Report, Aour representation against enquiry report and euidence on record, a lenient uieut has been taken for this time and gou are herebg WARNED to be metianlous at gour duties in future." And as per Note 3 (iii) which reads: "(iiil Caution/ Warning/ Recordable Waming tssued to the emplogee uithout issuance of ang CLtargesLeet/ Memorandum. Hotaeue1 in the past, if caution/ uarning/ recordable utarning is issued as a result of prouen/ establisLLed charges, it shall be treated as equiualent to "Censure"". The warning being on accolrnt of 'established charges' should be treated as equivalent to 'censure'. iii) That Rule 14.O of the Executive Promotion Rules (for short, 'EPR) deals with Procedure in respect of Executives facirrg disciplinary proceedings and Rule 14.4 of the EPR specifically provides that the delinquent who must be 'completely exonerated'for the sealed cover procedure to be given effect. However, in the present case, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view and \ l0 1 I issued a warning even though the charges were held to be proved by the Enquiry Ofhcer, which itself disentitle the appellant from coming inlo the zone of consideration for promolLon.

12. Now the points that arise for consideration in this writ appeal are: l. Whether the Disciplinary Authority r:an issue a tarning' though not enlisted in the list of prescribed penalties?

2. Which of the Rules would apply to matters of departmental proceedings in the event of these being two sets of Rules in existence like in the present case, as: a) EPR b) cD&A

3. What would be the nature of warning emd whether it would constitute a punishment? 4- Whether \rarning' in the facts of the case wouid amount to txoneration, of the charges and can it remove the impediment for promotion.. of the appellant to Grade-VI and Grade-VII? O.?' I l l1

5. Whether respondent No.4 herein has the locus standi to challenge the punishment awarded to the appellant?

6. What is the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and whether the Writ Court could direct the modification/ alteration of the punishment imposed on the appellant? Point Nos.l and 3:

13. It is pertinent to note that lvarning' is not considered as formal penalty under the Classification, Conduct and Appeal Rules and is distinct from tensure' which is a formal punishment. Further, the warnings are ' issued as an administrative device, for cautioning the employee for toning up efficiency in the case of minor lapses.

14. On perusal of the CD&A Rule No.2B.1 which enumerates specific penalties, wherein a karning' is not listed among them, as a warning issued is an administrative measure and not a formal penalty and the disciplinary authority has the discretion to issue a warning, based on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 'l l2 Point No.2

15. It is to be noted that the CD&A and EpR RuL:s operate in distinct domains wherein, the CD&A governs disciplinary proceedings and penalties while EpR Rules regulates promotions. Rule 14.1 1 of EPR Rules which prescribes a minimum penalty of 'censure' lbr partially proved charges, is intended to guicle promotion committees and not to override the powers of disciplinary authority under CD&A. i6. Further, under the Service Law, there is a distinction between promotion and disciplinary proceedinlgs. While disciplinary proceedings can affect an employee,s promotion, the Rules governing each process are distinct. Point No.4: 17 . In respect of the question that whether fuarning, would amount to exoneration of charges, it is to be noted that as per P.Ramanatha Aiyar "The Law Lexicon", the word ,exoneration, defined as 'the remoual of a burden, charge, responsibilitg, or duty'. In the present case. the disciplinary authority. in exercise of its administrative action has chosen to issue a weLrning. The disciplinary authorit5z has the exclusive discretion to amend, including the penalty not prescribed under enlisted penalties. a/ t, 13 Such a conscious and deliberate act on the account of the disciplinary authority can only be treated as exoneration of the appellant herein from the charge

18. Thus, the appellant having been exonerated by passing comment about the charges being proved with the enquiry report assume no significance and become redundant Point No.S:

19. It is also pertinent to note that a third party employee i.e. respondent No.4 herein has no right to challenge the penalty imposed unless it directly violates his legal or a Constitutional Right. Point No.6:

20. The scope of judicial review in matters concerning disciplinary actions is limited as it restricts the process and adherence of the applicable law including Rules and the compliance of principles of natural justice. In the present case, the Writ Court erred in directing an employer to impose a specihc penalty or enhance the punishment at the request of a third party. The direction to modi$z punishment and to reconsider promotion (based upon such modihed punishment) encroaches upon the domain of the discipiinary autffifty. I4 Therefore, the Writ Court canl-rot substitute its view for that of employee in maiters of disciplinary proceedings.

21. In vieu. of our findings above, it is obsenred that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondent Company and the official respondents to modify the punishment in accordance with Executive promotion Rules and reconsider the case of the appellant for promotion thereafter. Conclus ton

22. In the light of the above discussion, we are ol.the opinion that the learned Single ,Judge crrecl in applying th,e Executive Promotion Ruies to the disciplinary proceedings and in directing the modihcation of the punishment imposed on the appellant. The disciplinary authority acted within its powers under the CD&A Rules and the promotion granted to the appel.tant herein was in accordance with the sealed cover procedure. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 30.12_2024 in W.p.No.2555O of 2O:2 1. The promotion orders dated Og.12.2O2O and 23.02.2O21 in favour of the appellant are restored. There shall be no order as to costs. I I t5 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// D/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni SCCL, Kothagudem Collieries Bhadradri Kot Telangana State. lieries Company Limited h udem District-s07 101,

2. The Director Personnel Administration and welfare The Singareni collieries - a;;;;;r;'Ltmiieo- sccl, Kothagudem colieries Bhadradri Kothagudem District-5-07 101 , Telangana State.

3.TheGeneralManagerPersonnel,ExecuJiveEstablishment'TheSingareni - 6ilie;;a compan! Li;ited sbcl Kothagudem collieries Bhadradri 4. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of kothagudem Disirict:507 1 01 , Telangana State' Telangana at HYderabad.

5. The Section Officer, Writ Service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad.

6. One CC to SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI K.THIRUMALA RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 8. One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL [OPUC] 9. Two CD CoPies BSR o HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 JUDGMENT WA.No.355 o12025 ' 14,'r-'\^\. 22 $P 2$fr * DF.s pr.t gv,(o ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS \\ \ /a