High Court · 2025

Counsel for the, Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for tlre Res;pondents: SRI p.SRl HARSHA REDDy, SC r:OR SCCL The Court mado the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P ETITIO N No.39 O55 of 2 o22 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co' Ltd', appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The oetitioner ADD roached Court seekinq the Drav er as un der: "...to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the proceedings in Lr' No' CRP/PER/C/O12/3186 dated 17-11-2018 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Singareni Collieries which was confirmed by the Appeal by the 2nd respondent in Reference No.CRP/PER/o1'2/1993 dated 07-07-2022 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and consequential benefits relating to the post of Medical Superintendent in the l't respondent company as illegal null void and arbitrary and to pass" '"'

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner joinedintheSingareniCollieriesCompanyLimitedasSpecialist- Psychiatry, subsequently promoted as Medical Superintendent 2 SN. J \, P r90j i 2022 (Specialist-l)syc hiatry) in Area Hospital, Ramagundarrr Area-I, Peddapalli ')ir;l:r ict. The petitioner was issued vrith cha -ge sheet No.CRP/PEFi/(:tl2/V/G/1283, dated 30.05.1983, allr:gin l that the petitioner l'ai three bank accounts with transact ons of more than Rs.25,o(lCl- and the same is in contrary:o Fule 19.5 and

19.6 of C':)nc uct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 19t:i9. The petitioner sutrrritted reply on 29.10.2073 and havirg d ssatisfied with th e r r:ply, the respondent issued let :er No. CRP/VlG/2013lG/728, dated 20.77.2013. Thr: retitioner submitted 'rir; -eply dated 08.02.2014 and also subn.ritted his reply dafe,:l 17.07.2014 to the Articles of Cl^arg,:s dated 30.05.201.4 'Ihe respondent No.2 issued an office orrJer dated 25.07.20)4 L. the effect that the Disciplina"y Authority appointed l)r'. F.urudi Prasanna Simha, as Enquiry Officer to enquire intr:r the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Disciplina-y A.Lrt.hority before closing the enquiry had not given any opportrrrrit/ to the petitioner and had not 'ollowed due procedure enrl r:losed the enquiry against the CD&A Rulr:s, 1989. Further, nc irllegation of corruption or mis,3pp'opriation or miscond ur:t wz s mentioned in the charge sheet an(l th(,) enquiry also does nr:,t [,rove any such allegations against the petitioner. 3 SN, J wP 39055 2022 It is further the case oF the petitioner that the petitioner is alsoentitledtoreceivePerformancerelatedpayi.e.PRPforthe years 2014-2015 and 20].5-2016 and also previous years commencing from 2OO7-2008 on par with other executives who havereceivedsuchPRP.However,thesameWasstoppedaSthe petltioner was facing Articles of Charges and the same are pending. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner on earlier occasion filed W.P. No.40568 of 2018 and the same was disposed of directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders basing on the enquiry report dated 09'10'2016' Subsequently' the 1st respondent has passed an order dated 17'11'2018 against the petitioner for dismissal from service' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal on l3'OL'2022 before the 1tt respondent, and the same was rejected' The order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the 1st respondent was upheld by the 2nd respondent in Reference No' CRP/PER/ Ol2/1993' dated 07.07.2022. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition' P RUS DT ERECORD ! &; 4

4.A re lrerus lof the order of the Aooell Authorityl la

07. 2 2is xtra ed herr-'un ,der: SN. J \\,P]9055 2022 ' l.eference to the above, the Appellate I uthc,rity i.e. CoFln'r t[ee of Directors under CD&A Rules, in its neeting h,:lr: orr 04.06.2022 considered the appeal 5 i cited pr"ei'erred by you under CD&A Rules on the pellalty of "Dis mi:;s;al from the Company Services,, impcsed by the D sr:iplirary Authority vide proceedings 3.d <;ited, (-lnsidering the records placed before t, the Appr:llate Authority noted that misconduct:j co nmij_ted by you wer3 proved in enquiry. The Committee ma(je follow.ing ohsc rvitt.ions: i. The enquiry was held in detail where the appetjant u,as given full and fair opportunity to rjefend h.mself. l he misconducts of appellant were provec in t-.re :nquiry. I tre ,: lve (:3 m misconducts of the appella nt rsely affected the image and pa ny. ,:re grave and reputa:ion of the . Aftell n linarY1 uth D isci "Dismissal D iscipl ina r' n e a c I romc MDanv Services" e c n cam to lthe Eonclu ston t he h rm the Dena Itv of vou bv rmDo ed or! 17.1 1.:to 1{l= As€o:Gi nolY, the Denalw imDos duo on vor[ t v the cited is here bv y-_Authoritv vide proc wt h v lof c e t D isci confirm ed. This rss Author ,/. - 5 SN' J wP 19055 2022 brsc U SSION AND coN CLU ION:- 5 The lea d u o t e Detittoner con end

7.1 .20 Co refl c t M a t DUq ned da d u mw h s D e nfirmed bv the 2nd DOn ent ref rence No. CRP PER L2 3 both the satd orders eed q rou nd s: 2

7.O 2 d to be set side onthe followrnq d re ille (i) The order of the disciplinary authority is without any material evidence on record and contrary to the documents filed by the resPondents. (ii) The bank statement and explanation submitted by tn" pJiiiion"r had not been taken into consideration' As such the charge sheet is week. (iii) The major penalty awarded by the 1st respondent is illegal and contrarY to law. (iv) There are no complaints or adverse remarks against tne pJtitloner- ns such iwa'rding the punishment of dismissal iro-m se.uice is not sustainable in the eye of law' (v) The enquiry officer had not followed due procedure while conducting the enquiry against the. petitioner and no ooDortunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner to adduce defence on his behalf' (vi) witnesses failed to The Petitioner was produced bY the prove the Articles not allowed to cross-examine the management. The management oF charges leveled against the 6 .1 sN. .t \\ P i905i 2022 petitioner sir(:e it alleged that the workman has conmitted the miscondurt.

6. The Ie;,rned counsel appearing on beha f of the petitioner further ;ubrr its that though specific pleas had treer put forth before thr, aF,pellate authority in the appeal pr<,ferred by the petitioner lQit nst the order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the 1't responden,:. -l-he appellate authority however, dirl ncrt consider the same alct the 2nd respondent vide impugneC p.oceedings dated 07 J'.7 ,].022 by referring that after del ber,,rtion, the Committr:er r: tme to the conclusion that there i; n0 need to interfere vritlr the decision of the Disciplinary ,\uthority and accordinqlv (tr)lfirmed the penalty OF "Dismissal fr.om Company Services' nr;lrtsed by the Disciplinary Authority acrainst the petitioner- ,,id: proceedings dated L7.IL.2OIB anrl thi:refore in the interesl: ,)' justice, the matter has. to be remitj ed t.o the 2nd respondent 7 The_lea!'ned Standino Counsel, aooearino o n behalf of responderrt oes ot u e ssion of the learned 1:ounsel aooearino on behalf of the oetiti on er insofar as__S.emittino the subiect issue l:o .the 2"d resDonden 13 .ot 20it2 aDpeai i.e. I I 7 SN, J wP 19055 2022 reconsideration of the sam e afresh in acco rdance to law fore nsu fln o 2nd resoondent herein in the aDDeal dated 13. ned srtea kin order b of re .2022 b etitio ra arn he or r date

17.tL.20 18 oassed bv the 1tt resoondent i.e.. Discio linarv Authoritv & Chairm an&Ma naoinq Director of the Sinoare ni Collieries ComDanv Limited within a rea oeriod. o This Authoritv i.e. the 2nd resoond nt. dated o7.o7 .2022 I ref rr dto asse mecha xtract h A aoolica ion of mind routine manner, withou inde end entlv and therefore, the Detitaoner is entitle d for elief of recon siderati on of oetitioner's ooeal bv the 2"d dent. date d 13.01.2 O22 oref'erred bv the oetit oner ed bv the 1"t resDon L7.1t.2o aoainst th eo er Das 18 r resD ondent i.e.. the D isciol inarv Autho ritv,

9.7 ln ln (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 8 I SN ,' \\P -19055 2022 (b) 'l'he submissions made by the lea rne,d counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and th_- learned Standing (;ounsel appearing on behalf of respondents, and upon r: rnsent. Ther rn,rit petition is allowed. The imglugrred order yide Rerl.l,lc. CRP/pER/ClOt2/Lgg3, dated O-,t.O7.2022 passed !,y l he 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to decide the subject issue inclegrr:nden y in accordance to law by giving a reasonabrle opportunity of personal hearing to the petitionel' and pass appropriate reasoned orclers within a period ol' li)ur (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of tlris order and duly communicate the decision on the appeal oreferred by the petitioner dated 13.01.2O22 against proceedings bearing No. CRP/PER/'(:,tOl2/3LB6t dated 17.11.2O18 passed by the 1tt resporr,dernt to the petitioner. However, there shatt be no orden' i;ts :o costs. t 9 SN, J wP 39055 2022 ' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, any pending, in the Writ Petition shall.also stand,closed' Tirat Rule Nisi has made Absolutg.": 1bo'" The Hon,bte SRI SUJO' piiii,'itr" A"ting Chief Justice on this Fridav' the d;tl; Two Thouiand and Twenty Five' Fourth Day witness "f //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.BHAVANI SWAMY S TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER corrieries companv Limited '"'' 1i8"9$i.l?[,iln3!t 8ei]sfl::: P;',f,?8J43[3'reni 2 The Director, Personnel' Administration and Welfare' The Singareni Collieries - CorPinV Limited, Kothagudem' jll33;5Jfi"3[Y'%"#3:1[&*rhesingareni 'Ui,S3:"61#?iX'':h,gs:??. 4. One CC to SRI K DURGA PRASAD' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI P SRI HARSHA REDDY' SC FOR SCCL [OPUC] 6 BSR GJP Two CD CoPies b H]GH COt.tRT DATED:04.10412025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.39(15,!i of 2022 (!?, rES lls! [;l \ \, I : JUN ?025 (<\ )' =i,.'; .+ ALLOWINCi I'[-IE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT I.,.IC)STS @i' lK