High Court · 2024

W.P. No.26179 of 2017IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.04.2024CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.26179 of 2017B.Balasubramanian... PetitionerVs.1.The Chief General Manager/Mine-I Appellate Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.2.The Chief Manager / Mine – I, Disciplinary Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.…RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the reocords on the file of the 2nd respondent in 18.12.2015 in Proc.No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014 and the rejection of appeal order issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.05.2016 in Proc.No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.D.BharathyFor Respondents : Mr.N.NithianandamORDERThe petitioner herein, while working as Chief Technician in the respondent Corporation was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017a charge memo dated 25.09.2014 with the following charges:“Charges:“On 13.09.2014 during 2nd Shift, Shri.B.Balasubramanian, CPF No.37191, Chief Techn./TBS, Mine-I shouted and ultered some filthy words against the Mini Auto executives for allocating single pick up. After some time outgoing group boarded the vehicle but throughout the route.ve;j njtoah ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nru;j;J xz;zh nghl;lJ@ @ve;j ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nru;j;J xz;zh nghl;[email protected], CPF No.37191, Chief Techn./TBS, Mine-I used unparlimentary words over Mini Auto team. And Shri.B.Balasubramanian got down and again used filthy words as below.'B' ghapz;l;y mtd ghu;j;jdh mtd; rl;ilia fpHpg;ngd;/ mtid uz;lh fpHpr;rpLntd;/ 'B' ghapz;l;y mtd ghu;j;jdh mtd btl;Lntd;@Shri.B.Balasubramanian went inside allocation room and started broking the glass panes, doors, fittings and Tube light etc., Shri.A.Yasudoss, Sr.Operator, PF.No.36649, also shouted at him, why he is doing such things. Immediately Shri. Palaniappan, SME Operator pushed him outside and advised him as follows.@!;oiuf; ilk;y njitapy;yhj ntiybay;yhk; Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017br";rp khl;of;fhnj! ngrhk nghapL@/Shri.B.Balasubramanian, not only created a bad scenario but de-moralize indiscipline and spoil the morale among the workers.”2.The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the said charge memo denying the charges. Consequently, an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 05.10.2015. The conclusions of the enquiry officer are as under:“CONCLUSION:-From the witness statement of MW-II and MW-III, it is confirmed that the charge sheeted employee had abused the executive who had engaged the combined pickup and shouted the words'' @ve;j njtoah ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nrh;j;J xz;zh nghl;lJ@ ve;j ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nrh;j;J xz;zh nghl;lJ@ mtd ghh;j;jdh mtd; rl;ilia fpHpg;ngd;/ mtid uz;lh fpHpr;rpLntd;@ and broken the glass panes, doors, fittings and Tube light etc., in the allocation room as stated in the charges is true.During enquiry process it is found that the charge sheeted employee is of emotional type and had met with an Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017accident and got head injury. Hence the charge sheeted employee may be transferred to some other area.Accordingly, I the Enquiry Officer hereby conclude that the charges framed against the charge sheeted employee Shri.B.Balasubramanian, CPF.No.37191, Chief Techn./NTBS, Mine-I vide the charge memo No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014, Dt.25.09.2014 stand “PROVED”3.Thereafter, the disciplinary authority/Respondent No.2 passed an order in Proc.No:M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014, dated 18.12.2015 imposing punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of 2 years. In the said order of punishment, the disciplinary authority observed as under:“The Presenting Officer on behalf of the Management totally three documents were submitted which were marked as Management ME-1 to ME-3. The CSE produced an documentary evidence which was marked 1, 2 & 3 in support of his defence. The CSE assailed charges leveled against him. Neither party adduced the above document evidences before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, adhering to the principles of Natural Justice, has concluded that the charges leveled against him stand “Proved”.The Disciplinary Authority offer an independent analysis Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017fully concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that the charge sheet employee has committed the misconducts. As the proven charges are grave in nature and that the past records of this individual are satisfactory, the disciplinary authority imposed inflict the penalty of “Reduction of pay by Two stages for a period of years”Shri.Balasubramanian, CPF No.37191, Chief Tech.,/NTBS, Mine-1 was preferring a mercy petition against the order. The individual has preferred mercy petition with the CGM/Mine-1 dated: 26.04.2016 seeking the withheld the imposed punishment.”4.From the perusal of the above extracted paragraph and from the order of punishment, it appears that the disciplinary authority, having taken note of the fact of marking of 3 exhibits on behalf of the management and 3 documents on behalf of the petitioner herein, proceeded to observe that neither party adduced the above document evidences before the Enquiry Officer which is false on the face of it. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment dated 25.09.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal under the standing orders. The said appeal was considered by the 1st respondent herein Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017and the same was rejected through proceedings in Proc.No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014 dated 10.05.2016. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached this Court by filing this present writ petition.5.From the perusal of the impugned order dated 10.05.2016, it is evident that the very same paragraph, as extracted above from the order of the disciplinary authority is verbatim re-produced by the 1st respondent, the appellate authority in the impugned order. Such an act apparently shows gross non application of mind on the part of the appellate authority as well. As the petitioner availed the opportunity of appeal provided under the relevant standing orders, the appellate authority ought to have gone through the entire matter and examined it independently, while considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.6.From the perusal of the impugned order it is noticed that absolutely there is no application of mind on the part of the appellate authority. On the other hand, the appellate authority appears to have passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner by extracting the order passed by the disciplinary authority. If such a course, adopted by the appellate Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017authority is allowed to stand, the same would frustrate the very purpose of providing the appeal remedy under the relevant standing orders. 7.Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside by duly remanding the matter back to the 1st respondent for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 26.04.2016 afresh on merits and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to pass orders as directed above as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner.8.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.02.04.2024Index:Yes/NoSpeaking Order:Yes/NodpaPage No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.dpaTo:1.The Chief General Manager/Mine-I Appellate Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.2.The Chief Manager / Mine – I, Disciplinary Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.W.P.No.26179 of 201702.04.2024Page No.8 of 8

W.P. No.26179 of 2017IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.04.2024CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARW.P.No.26179 of 2017B.Balasubramanian... PetitionerVs.1.The Chief General Manager/Mine-I Appellate Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.2.The Chief Manager / Mine – I, Disciplinary Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.…RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the reocords on the file of the 2nd respondent in 18.12.2015 in Proc.No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014 and the rejection of appeal order issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.05.2016 in Proc.No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.D.BharathyFor Respondents : Mr.N.NithianandamORDERThe petitioner herein, while working as Chief Technician in the respondent Corporation was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing Page No.1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017a charge memo dated 25.09.2014 with the following charges:“Charges:“On 13.09.2014 during 2nd Shift, Shri.B.Balasubramanian, CPF No.37191, Chief Techn./TBS, Mine-I shouted and ultered some filthy words against the Mini Auto executives for allocating single pick up. After some time outgoing group boarded the vehicle but throughout the route.ve;j njtoah ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nru;j;J xz;zh nghl;lJ@ @ve;j ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nru;j;J xz;zh nghl;[email protected], CPF No.37191, Chief Techn./TBS, Mine-I used unparlimentary words over Mini Auto team. And Shri.B.Balasubramanian got down and again used filthy words as below.'B' ghapz;l;y mtd ghu;j;jdh mtd; rl;ilia fpHpg;ngd;/ mtid uz;lh fpHpr;rpLntd;/ 'B' ghapz;l;y mtd ghu;j;jdh mtd btl;Lntd;@Shri.B.Balasubramanian went inside allocation room and started broking the glass panes, doors, fittings and Tube light etc., Shri.A.Yasudoss, Sr.Operator, PF.No.36649, also shouted at him, why he is doing such things. Immediately Shri. Palaniappan, SME Operator pushed him outside and advised him as follows.@!;oiuf; ilk;y njitapy;yhj ntiybay;yhk; Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017br";rp khl;of;fhnj! ngrhk nghapL@/Shri.B.Balasubramanian, not only created a bad scenario but de-moralize indiscipline and spoil the morale among the workers.”2.The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the said charge memo denying the charges. Consequently, an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted. The enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 05.10.2015. The conclusions of the enquiry officer are as under:“CONCLUSION:-From the witness statement of MW-II and MW-III, it is confirmed that the charge sheeted employee had abused the executive who had engaged the combined pickup and shouted the words'' @ve;j njtoah ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nrh;j;J xz;zh nghl;lJ@ ve;j ktz;lh ,uz;L gpf;fg;iga[k; nrh;j;J xz;zh nghl;lJ@ mtd ghh;j;jdh mtd; rl;ilia fpHpg;ngd;/ mtid uz;lh fpHpr;rpLntd;@ and broken the glass panes, doors, fittings and Tube light etc., in the allocation room as stated in the charges is true.During enquiry process it is found that the charge sheeted employee is of emotional type and had met with an Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017accident and got head injury. Hence the charge sheeted employee may be transferred to some other area.Accordingly, I the Enquiry Officer hereby conclude that the charges framed against the charge sheeted employee Shri.B.Balasubramanian, CPF.No.37191, Chief Techn./NTBS, Mine-I vide the charge memo No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014, Dt.25.09.2014 stand “PROVED”3.Thereafter, the disciplinary authority/Respondent No.2 passed an order in Proc.No:M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014, dated 18.12.2015 imposing punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of 2 years. In the said order of punishment, the disciplinary authority observed as under:“The Presenting Officer on behalf of the Management totally three documents were submitted which were marked as Management ME-1 to ME-3. The CSE produced an documentary evidence which was marked 1, 2 & 3 in support of his defence. The CSE assailed charges leveled against him. Neither party adduced the above document evidences before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, adhering to the principles of Natural Justice, has concluded that the charges leveled against him stand “Proved”.The Disciplinary Authority offer an independent analysis Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017fully concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and came to the conclusion that the charge sheet employee has committed the misconducts. As the proven charges are grave in nature and that the past records of this individual are satisfactory, the disciplinary authority imposed inflict the penalty of “Reduction of pay by Two stages for a period of years”Shri.Balasubramanian, CPF No.37191, Chief Tech.,/NTBS, Mine-1 was preferring a mercy petition against the order. The individual has preferred mercy petition with the CGM/Mine-1 dated: 26.04.2016 seeking the withheld the imposed punishment.”4.From the perusal of the above extracted paragraph and from the order of punishment, it appears that the disciplinary authority, having taken note of the fact of marking of 3 exhibits on behalf of the management and 3 documents on behalf of the petitioner herein, proceeded to observe that neither party adduced the above document evidences before the Enquiry Officer which is false on the face of it. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment dated 25.09.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal under the standing orders. The said appeal was considered by the 1st respondent herein Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017and the same was rejected through proceedings in Proc.No.M-I/HR/DAC/278-150/2014 dated 10.05.2016. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached this Court by filing this present writ petition.5.From the perusal of the impugned order dated 10.05.2016, it is evident that the very same paragraph, as extracted above from the order of the disciplinary authority is verbatim re-produced by the 1st respondent, the appellate authority in the impugned order. Such an act apparently shows gross non application of mind on the part of the appellate authority as well. As the petitioner availed the opportunity of appeal provided under the relevant standing orders, the appellate authority ought to have gone through the entire matter and examined it independently, while considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal.6.From the perusal of the impugned order it is noticed that absolutely there is no application of mind on the part of the appellate authority. On the other hand, the appellate authority appears to have passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner by extracting the order passed by the disciplinary authority. If such a course, adopted by the appellate Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017authority is allowed to stand, the same would frustrate the very purpose of providing the appeal remedy under the relevant standing orders. 7.Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside by duly remanding the matter back to the 1st respondent for considering the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 26.04.2016 afresh on merits and for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to pass orders as directed above as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner.8.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.02.04.2024Index:Yes/NoSpeaking Order:Yes/NodpaPage No.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.26179 of 2017MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.dpaTo:1.The Chief General Manager/Mine-I Appellate Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.2.The Chief Manager / Mine – I, Disciplinary Authority, Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli – 607 803.W.P.No.26179 of 201702.04.2024Page No.8 of 8