The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Amresh Mishra W.P.(S) No. 2625 of 2015 ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited through the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, District-Dhanbad 2.Director (Tech.) P & P, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, District-Dhanbad 3.General Manager (Civil), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Civil Engineering Department, Koyla Bhawan, District-Dhanbad. ………. Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
----------- : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate 09/ 12.03.2024 Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the office order ---------- dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure-10) issued under the signature of General Manager (Civil), Civil Engineering Department, BCCL. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Director (Tech.) P & P, BCCL, whereby the said respondent has refused to interfere in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on Muster Roll on 07.02.1972 and continued to work under earstwhile CML WO (Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organization). Thereafter, he was regularized to the post of LDC w.e.f. 05.02.1980. After the merger of CMLWO with BCCL, petitioner opted for same terms and condition of services which were applicable to the Employees of BCCL. It is case of the petitioner that Ministry of Coal came out with CCS Pension Rules, vide circular dated 07.03.2003 wherein it was stipulated that half of the services rendered on monthly paid contingent employees of CMLWO who were continuous without any break in service before their transfer in Coal Company may be counted for grant of pensionary Benefit. In view of the said circular, petitioner requested the respondents to look into the matter and extend the same benefits but the same was not considered. Thereafter, the petitioner along with others moved before Central Administrative Tribunal and by -1- order dated 23.12.2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the applications filed by petitioner along with 16 others and held that they are entitled for grant of Pro-Rata Pension w.e.f 01.10.1986. Aggrieved by the order of CAT, Union of India approached Hon’ble High Court in W.P.S No. 803 of 2008 and the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the GM (Construction) C.E. Department, Koyla Bhawan, BCCL issued an Office Memorandum dated 26/27.06.2012 by which the petitioner was directed to submit his written statement against the charge of false declaration made by him that he had worked as a monthly rated contingent employee in the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Works (Dhanbad). The petitioner submitted his reply to the memorandum on 17.08.2012 denying all the charges levelled against him and stated that the issues raised by the department has already been considered by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court in WPS No. 803 of 2008 and the same has already been rejected. Dissatisfied by the reply, the office passed an order to hold domestic enquiry. Thereafter enquiry proceeding was conducted and the charges were found to be proved. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of Reduction to a lower grade and post as Accountant Assistant in Clerical Spl. Grade with initial basic pay with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director (Technical) (P&P) and the same was also rejected. Thereafter, Petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and the same has been issued utter violation of the orders of the High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submits that when the issue has already been set at rest, it was not open for the respondent-BCCL to initiate a proceeding on the same issue by issuance of charge-sheet. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner appeared in the departmental proceeding but the contention raised by the petitioner was never considered and the enquiry report is perverse and any order based on the perverse report is nullity in the eyes of law and as such the order is fit to be -2- quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further submits that even on facts nowhere it has been demonstrated that petitioner was a regular students. It has been argued that specific stand has been taken by the petitioner that he never appeared in the examination as a regular student. He was an ex- student and after taking due leave he appeared in the examination and there is no illegality in appearing in the said examination. Learned counsel further submits that punishment order is fit to be quashed and set aside and as the enquiry report itself is based on wrong facts and as such the orders are illegal and arbitrary and fit to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposing the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has challenge the punishment order. The punishment order was issued by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority based on the enquiry report. There was a full-fledged departmental proceeding petitioner was given ample opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding. Nowhere it has been even whispered by the petitioner’s counsel that there was a folly in the departmental proceeding, neither it has been pointed out that there has been complete violation of cardinal principle of natural justice. Ample opportunity was given to the petitioner and after examination of the witnesses and after going through the documents exhibited a finding has been returned by the enquiry officer which has been found correct and appreciated by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority and thereafter the punishment has been inflicted. Learned counsel further submits that sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidences, which were before the enquiry report and as such the punishment order is fully justified. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, para-28 which reads as under:- 28... The Constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectively could have -3- arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. 5. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons (i)Petitioner has been slapped with order of punishment in a regular departmental proceeding. (ii)The Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the charges and thereafter based on the said enquiry report after following the due procudure punishment has been inflicted by the disciplinary authority duly approved by the appellate authority. (iii)Ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner in the regular departmental proceeding. (iv)Nowhere it has been pointed out by the petitioner that any folly is there in the regular proceeding conducted by the respondents neither it has been argued that there is violation of cardinal principle of natural justice.(v)Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has very limited power to interfere with the punishment order. No perversity in enquiry report has been pointed out, the petitioner is pressing for re-appraisal of the evidence which is impermissible and beyond jurisdiction of this Court. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority re-appreciating the evidences which was subject matter before the enquiry officer. Regarding the factual aspect, the report of the controller of examination of the University was properly examined by the enquiry officer and the same has been found to be true and there is no reasons to disbelieve the same. 6. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, nothing remains to be adjudicated. No interference is
Decision
warrant. The writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. Rohit- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) -4-