Md. Rahamatullah …. … v. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Ranchi. Director, Personnel / Appellate Authority, Central
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6030 of 2014 Md. Rahamatullah …. …. Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. Versus Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Ranchi. Director, Personnel / Appellate Authority, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. General Manager / Disciplinary Authority, Hazaribagh Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Hazaribagh. General Manager, I.R.-cum-Inquiry Officer, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. …. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------ : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ----- 7/ 16.04.2024 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the office order dated 13.09.2014 by which he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 4.7.2015, whereby the dismissal order has been affirmed. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 17.06.1992 on class-IV post at Kathara Washery under the respondent- Company. In course of time, he was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade-III and subsequently to the post of Weigh Bridge Clerk, Gr-II. While the petitioner was posted at Kathara Wahsery and doing the work relating to sales of slurry and rejects, a charge-sheet was submitted on 17.5.2013 against him with the allegation and he, in connivance with his subordinates, allowed various private parties to lift about 15057.4 MT of slurry and 9319.2 MT of rejects in huge quantities without being billed, which caused an approximate loss of Rs. 3.9 crore to the Company. The petitioner explained the charges levelled against him and prayed for exoneration. Having not satisfied with the reply dated 27.5.2013, the disciplinary authority 1 constituted an Enquiry Committee to enquire the entire episode. Finally, upon perusal of the entire documentary as well as oral evidence, the enquiry report was submitted on 25.6.2014 whereby the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved. Agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service as the charges were very serious. The appeal preferred thereagainst was also rejected by the appellate authority on 4.7.2015. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the impugned order of punishment as well as appellate order on the ground that the same are based on perverse enquiry report. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner requisitioned the relevant documents, but the same were not supplied, which seriously prejudiced the petitioner in proving his innocence in the departmental proceeding. Referring
Decision
to page-81 of the writ petition, which is the extract of enquiry report, learned counsel submits that relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner and relying upon these documents, the disciplinary authorities have inflicted the punishment. As such, the non-supply of the copy of the required documents contravenes the principle of reasonable opportunity envisaged under Article 311 (2) and also violates the principle of natural justice. Reference may be had to the judgment in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 468. Learned counsel further submits that even accepting the guilt of the petitioner proved, the order of capital punishment is harsh and excessive in nature which shocks the judicial conscious. Therefore, interference of this Court is necessitated for the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents controverts the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the required documents were given to the petitioner. Referring to paragraph-6 of the document brought on record at page-74 of the writ petition, learned counsel submits that all documents were given to the petitioner before coming to the finding of the guilt. To falsify the stand of the petitioner, Mr. Mehta, further points out that 2 not a single statement has been made in the entire writ petition or before the enquiry officer as to how the petitioner was prejudiced by non-supply of the relevant documents. Learned counsel further adds that even before the disciplinary authority or before the appellate authority, the petitioner had not taken the plea that as to what prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the required documents. Ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. The settled procedures of departmental proceeding were adhered to. Placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh (Dead) through L.R., reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 901, learned counsel submits that mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference. Admittedly, the charges have been proved by the enquiry officer. The petitioner has not pointed out any folly regarding the charges being proved. The petitioner has assailed the impugned punishment only on the ground that the required documents have not been supplied to him which seriously affects the case of the petitioner in proving his innocence. This stand of the petitioner appears to be not tenable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the present case, it is nowhere mentioned in the entire writ petition that as to what prejudice has caused the petitioner for non-supply of the required documents. The petitioner has not even taken the stand while submitting the reply to the enquiry report that due to non-supply of documents, he has prejudiced his case. In the appeal preferred against the penalty order, the petitioner has also not taken this stand. The contention of the petitioner was further falsified in the enquiry report, which has been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, wherein, in para-6 at page-74, it is mentioned that the documents filed by the prosecution were adduced and one set of documents was also handed over to the employee. As such, the stand of the petitioner that the required documents were not supplied, is also not available and hence of no help to the petitioner. 3 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar (supra) held that “if after hearing the parties, the Court comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court should not interfere with the order of punishment”. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab Vs. Nachhattar Singh (supra) held that mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside. The relevant paragraph-2 is quoted herein below:- the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 “Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the reasoning given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under is Section 100 of unsustainable. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the disciplinary authority solely on the ground that some documents were not supplied to the delinquent. However, it is required to be noted that as such there is no finding that non supply of some documents has resulted into any prejudice caused to the delinquent-employee. Mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside.” 10. Further, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are also of no help to the petitioner, as the guilt of the petitioner has been proved and his action cannot be said to be justified in any way, which shocks the judicial conscious, requiring any interference by this Court. 11. As a squitter to the aforesaid rules, regulations, judicial proponents, no interference is warranted in the impugned punishment order dated 13.9.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority, which was further affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 4.7.2015. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 4