Sadula - P1q!qsh v. exemPlarY costs

Heard Sri Kallepalli Thirumala Rao, tearned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner ancr Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 h eti on a praver as under: h thi c e "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing or set aside the proceedings No. CRP/PER/rR/D/96/r44 dated B.Or.2023 issued by the Respondents whereby I was removed From the Company's services with effect from 14.02.2023 and consequential Proceedings No. CRp/pER/tR/D/gO/456 dated 20.04.2023 whereby earlier proceedings dated 03.02.2023 was modified as Reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i.e. from Sr. Mining Sirdar, T&S Grade B to IMET T&S Grade-C issued by the respondents holding the same as discriminatory, illegal, arbitrarf and contrary to law but also affects the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 2l of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to 2 SN,J wp_35112_2023 restore my original grade i€., Sr' Mining Sirdar, T&S Grade-B with effect from 14.O2.2023 by passing appropriate orders with all consequential benefits including interest and exemplary costs and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of j ustice. "

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that when the petitioner was working as Senior Mining Sirdar in Singareni Collieries Company Limited, an accident occurred and three coal cutters received sprious injuries and the petitioner was removed from the service alleging that the petitioner violated the Coal Mines Regulations and Company's Standing Orders. Despite submitting a detailed explanation and appeal, the respondent company modified the initial removal order to reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i.e., from Senior Mining Sirdar, T & S Grade-B to IMETT&SGrade-CvideProceedings No. CRP/PER/ lR/ D / go / 456 dated 20.04.2023. Agg rieved bv the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition' ERU ED TH REC RD

4. The releva nt Dortion imouqn din s t he res o 2vi Me I I I 3 SN,J wp 357L2 2023 O.CRP P IR 96 t4 a o .o2 20 3 to h o.4 erer n rse ra here n der: "At about 10.45am an accident had occurred at 21Ls/25Dl3seam to three coal cutters namely (1) Sri Ch. Ramakrishna, (2) Sri B.Rajashekar and (3) Sri E. Srinivas, in which they received serious injuries, On enquiry into the accident, it was revealed that, the three coal cutters were allowed to drill the ' same place without holes in ensuring/inspecting the place for misfired socket. Thus while taking up drilling, the same has got connected to misfired socket and got blasted resulting to the above accident.,,

5. The releva nt DOrtio I h t rmDUq ned o.1 vi /Dl9'0J456 No.CRP/PER lt o4.2 23 add ressed tot e resPgndent No. 2 her ln ts extracted hereunder:

20. "However, taking into consideration of the reasons mentioned in the appeal submitted by you i.e. loss of livelihood, your assurance that you will be careful and conscientious in discharging your I :.-..r*&;,ffi; 4 SN,J wp-35ll2 _2023 duties in future if re-instated and all the relevant facts and circumstances, a lenient view has been taken for this time and it is decided to modify the penalty of "Removal from Company's services" imposed on you w.e.f ' 14'02'2023 by the Disciplinary Authority, vide Office Order No.CRP/PER/IRlDl96/t44, Dt'03'Ot/02'2023 as penalty of "Reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i.e. from Sr. Mining Sirdar, T&S Grade B to IMET T&S Grade-C" with immediate effect"'

5. Th a rm nts m b .L2 13 nd 14 re nt r u h o he reu nder: "12. I submit that as far as accidents in the mining industry are concerned, they can be broadly categorized in two groups, mainly Fatal and Non-fatal. It is reliably learnt in fatal cases also rarely order of removal from service is imposed and the erring employee is downgraded to lower grades. As far as non-fatal accidents concerned reduction of two increments with without cumulative effect is awarded' 13. I submit that in the instant case it is only a non-fatal accident resulting in serious injuries and against the usual practice as done in similar cases 5 SN,J wp _3571.2 _2023 of reduction of two increments, I was imposed the penalty of Reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i.e. from Sr. Mining Sirdar, T&S Grade B to JMET T&S Grade-C. L4. In this regard in similar cases of the following employees a punishment of lesser degree was imposed and the details are as under: 1 2 3 4 7 Sl.No Name of the employee Nature of accident Bandi Srinivas, Shot firer, EC.No.2901236 Misconduct under Reg.169(a), 170(1) and 190 of CMR, 1957 Y. Mallikarjuna rao, SFIMS Ec. No.13183s' Ra makrishna Pandey, Overman EC. No.297542 Katla Srikanth, SF/MS EC.No.0146393 FATAL Misconduct under company 5.O.No.25(5), Reg-239, and Reg.48 of CMR 2017 FATAL M isconduct under company S.O.No.25(5), Reg.239, and Reg.47 of CMR 2017 FATAL Violation of Reg.49(f), 203, 204(61,206(b) of CMR - 2017 amounting to Misconduct under C.S.O.No.25.5 Punishment imposed Stoppage of one increme nt retrospectively without cumulative effect. Stoppage of two increments Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect Stoppage of two (2) increments with cumulative effect. The cou nt r affidavit has been filed on be alf of DaraqraDh Nos.7, I the re DOndents and in oarticular n and 11 are extr c ted hereunder: \ 6 SN,J wp_35112_2023 "7. In reply to para no' 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that on 08'09'2022 at about 10-45 AM, mine accident has occurred at 27LS125D of 3 seam of KTK-3 OCP(UG) mine resulting in serious injury to three employees who were working as Coal Cutters due to negligence of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner, without inspecting the place of work, has allowed the three coal cutters to drill holes in the place of misfired socket and which got connected to it resulting in blast and caused injuries to the 3 coal cutters. The petitioner was issued a chargesheet- cum-suspension vide letter no BHP/KTK-OC- rrr(uG)/o-3912022/4233, dtd 12.09.2022. The petitioner, vide his letter dated 15.09.2022, has submitted his explanation. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was examined by the concerned authorities and found it to be not satisfactory and subsequently have conducted departmental enquiry into the charges leveled against him ' It is submitted that during the enquiry, B. after going through all the evidences and proofs, it was proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was responsible for the above said mine accident which has resulted in serious injuries to the three employees of the mine. It is submitted that being the charges leveled and proved against the I 4 /1 7 SN,J wp_3511.2 2023 petitioner being grave and serious in nature. the petitioner was initially dismissed from the services of the respondent company with effect from 74.02.2023 vide tefter no. CRp/pER/IR/D/96/I44, dtd. 03.02.2023. However, in consideration of his appeal, a lenient view was taken and his dismissal was revoked and modified the penalty of Reversion to lower grade by reducing two Grades ie, from Sr. Mining Sirdar, T&S Grade-B to IMET T&S Grade_C was imposed with immediate effect vide office order No. CRP/PER/IR/D / 90 / 456, did. 20.04.2023. 11. In reply to para nos. 14 and 15 of the affidavit, it is submitted that in a Mine accident case, one Executive and 4 Supervisors were collectively imposed punishment based on the enquiry report and the recommendations of the Internal Safety Organization, and the disciplinary authority . Further, it iss ubmitted that one accident case can not MD red with that he mrne a r resoonsible would have resulted in fata lities. " ident which h II relevant Dortion of

8. The the charqe dated 1 2 9.2022 pertainin qto the petitioner is extracted hereunder: "At about 10:45am an accident had occurred at 2LLS/2sD/3seam to three coal cutters 8 SN,J wp_35112_202 3 r\ namely 1) Sri Ch. Ramakrishna, 2) Sri B' Rajashekar and 3) Sri E. Srinivas, in which they received serious injuries." Th relevant portron of the ounishm ent mDosed s

1.O2. 2l 9 e owever, to qiv an ooDort unl imorove vo urself and takin q a lenie nt view for this time, the oena!tv of Stoooaqe of Two (21 awarded." ct" n DISC USSI ON AND co NCLUSION:- 1O. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the petitioner's case, it is only a non-fatal accident resulting in serious injuries and the usual practice of imposing punishment in similar cases as that of the petitioner is reduction of two increments, however, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i'e', from Senior Mining Sirdar, T & S Grade-B to JMET T & S Grade-C. , ,.1 9 5N,.i wp_35112_2023

11. ft is further case of the petitioner that in fatal case also, rarely, order of removal from service will be imposed, otherwise the erring employee is downgraded to lower grades and as far as non-fatal case is concerned, reduction of two increments with or without cumutative effect will be awarded. But, in the present case, the petitioner was imposed with a harsh punishment i.e., reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i.e., from Senior Mining Sirdar, T & S Grade-B to JMET T & S Grade-C.

12. It is further case of the petitioner that in a more severe accident case of Sri KaUa Srikanth which was proved as Fatal accident, Iesser punishment i.e., stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was awarded.

13. It is further case of the petitioner that initially, proceedings dated 03.02.2023 had been issued to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was removed from service with effect from L4.02.2023. SubsequenUy, proceedings dated 20.04.2023 have been issued whereby earlier proceedings dated 03.02.2023 were modified as reversion to 10 SN,J _2023 -35712 n lower grade by reducing two grades i'e', from Senior Mining Sirdar, T & S Grade B to JMET T & S Grade-C' t4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been subject to discrimination and the same is not admissible under law'

15. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that one accident case cannot be compared with that of another and in the present case, it is proved that the petitioner is wholly responsible for the mine accident which would have resulted in fatalities.

16. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the charges leveled had been proved against the petitioner and the same were grave and serious in nature, the petitioner was initially dismissed from service of the respondent company with effect from 14'02'2023 vide letter dated 03.02.2023, however, in consideration of petitioner's appeal, a lenient view was taken and the petitioner's dismissal was revoked and the modified penalty of reversion to lower grade by reducing two grades i.e', from Senior Mining Sirdar, T & S Grade B to IMET T & S Grade-C was 11 5N,J wp_35112 2023 imposed with immediate effect vide office order dated 20.04.2023 and further that, it is the decision of the competent authority to impose punishment on the delinquent employees based on the merits and evidences present in the case and the competent authority in the present case, after considering all the factors had passed impugned orders, therefore, the petitioner is not entiued for any rerief as prayed for in the present writ petition and the writ petition needs to be dismissed.

17. ar e un ela earin f resDo nde nts Dla ces reli nceonth IU o ent reD o o h f e d K h o1 2 c 7 d 29 07.20 3 nt' u n w rva GramrNBank andanother (Now llah abad. P ad sh Gr k V R en ra Si h" an B n a cu r r hN 1 1 a d1 R s e s n n k le m r n h e d V o 8 s 2 t c f) r a 74 n t a r hN 1 o erv d s 1-7 SN,J wp_35112_2023 r\

15. It is true that delinquent officers similarly situated should be dealt with similarly and, thus if the charges against the employees are identical, it is desirable that they be dealt with similarlY' L9 . The e u me d d 1 c o 200 utt r Pr desh Vs. Ra oaraqra oh Nos.5 and 6observed as un der: Pal 'sa nqh" and lnD a rticu la r, at "5. Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges levelled against the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose diFferent punishments for different delinquents' The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these em p loyees. 6 It disciolin rv authoritv to deal nd nc is un oubtedlv oDen for the ith th e 7 to w d a t n th h d ti

1.1 SN,J wp_35112 2023 r r a e n e e n en ca in te uni m a ean t.B w e t d al in th a ar In a er w s e oin rmit d req lrtnq o r under Article 13 6 d scrtmt nato r of ou n ish ment, would b DUqn vl w with t e tnterferen ce Constitution.,,

20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner filed additional affidavit disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit filed'on behalf of the respondents and placing reliance, in paiticular to paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the additional affidavit filed on behatf of the petitioner, reiterated the petitioner,s specific pleas that the petitioner had been discriminated as the charges had been the same in petitioner's case and in the case of one Sri K.Srikanth and also the charges arose in the same incident and therefore, the respondent company cannot award different the petitioner, since in respect of K.Srikanth, the appellate authority modified the penalty imposed as "CENSURE,, vide office order dated 1B.OI.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. punishments to 74 5N,J wp_35112_2023 DIS ss NA DC NCL IO 2L. A bare perusal of the charge dated 03'02'2023 issued to the petitioner herein indicates that it is an identical charge dated 09.09.2020 as framed against one Sri Katla Srikanth i.e., commission of gross negligence towards the duty which resulted into serious proved fatal accident injuries to the coal cutters.

22. A bare perusal of the specific averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, in particular, paragraph Nos'12, 13 and 14 (referred to and extracted above) and the material documents filed along with the present writ petition and also the averments made in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of t'he respondents (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicate that the punishment imposed with respect to other similarly situated individuals' like the petitioner, is liberal as compared to the punishment imposed on the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearlng on behalf of the respondi:nts does not dispute that the punishment imposed with respect to others was of i I 15 SN,J wp 35112 2023 a lesser degree compared to the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, however, contends that there cannot be any comparison of one accident case with another accident case, and the punishment in respect of the petitioner was based on the enquiry report along with the recommendations of the Intervention Safety Organization and the disciplinary authority and therefore, the same warrant no interference by the Court.

23. This Court opines that the said plea is not tenable in view of the glaring similarity as borne on record, between the charges framed against the petitioner and the K.Srikanth and the judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents do not apply to the facts of the present case.

24. Takinq into consideration: a ) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned 1b SN,J wp_3511.2_2023 I Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The contents of the charges issued to the petitioner and also one Srikanth (referred to and extracted above), d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 11 (referred to and extracted above), e) The iudgrhents referred by the petitioner (enlisted below): "Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of i) Jharkhand and others" reported in (2O08) 2 SCC 74", ii) "State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rai Pal Singh" reported in (2O1O) 5 SCC 783", The averments made in the affidavit filed by the f) petitioner in support of the present writ petition in particular, paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 (referred to and extracted above) and, 77 SN,J wp_35112_2023 g) The averments made in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and in particular paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 (referred to and extracted above) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 vide Memo No.CRp/pER /tR/D/96/144 dated 03.o2.2023 addressed to' the respondent No.4 herein and impugned progeedings.of the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.CRP/PER/[R/D/9O/456 dated 2O.O4.ZO23 addressed to the respondent No,2 herein are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for re-consideration of the whole issue afresh again, duly considering the specific request of the petitioner for restoration of the petitioner to .the original grade i.e., Senior Mining Sirdar, T & S Grade B with all consequential benefits and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with the principtes of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in the { 18 5N,.J wp _35712_2023 judgments (referred to and extracted above) within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To, 'l . The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collienes Company Limited, Kothagudem Collieries-SO7'101, Bhadradri Kothagudem Di st. (TS). J 2 The Director (Personnel Administration and Welfare), The Singareni Collieries Companylimited, Kothagudem Collieries-5071 0'l.Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist.(TS) The General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Bhupalpalli Area, PO. Bhupalpelli-506 169, Jay ashankar Bhupalpalli Dist. (TS) The General Manager (Personnel)/lR and PM, The Singareni Collieries Companylimited, Kothagudem Collieries-507'1 01. Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist. (TS). 4 5 6 7 o One CC to SRI KALLEPALLI THIRUMALA RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES co LTD) [OPUC] Two CD Copies. BSK BS 5 * * i F * t t t I CC TODAY H1 TA o C) 0 1 A t] n r'l 025 2 * +. HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 t , ( , I i F ;i ORDER i wp.No.35112 of 2023 t I t I ? t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q\ )b