Arvind Kumar Sharma, aged about 55 years, son of Late Chandrika Sharma, resident of v. 1. Coal India Ltd; a Government of India Enterprise, “Coal Bhawan", Action Area at
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6086 of 2022 -- Arvind Kumar Sharma, aged about 55 years, son of Late Chandrika Sharma, resident of Village-Ladu, P.O-Dema, (Bodhgaya), P.S.- Mohanpur, District Gaya (Bihar). .....Petitioner Versus 1. Coal India Ltd; a Government of India Enterprise, “Coal Bhawan", Action Area at: IA, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O + P.S.-Rajarhat, Kolkata 700156(W.B) 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd; "Coal Bhawan", Action Area at:1A, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O + P.S.-Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156 (W.B.) 3. Chief Manager, Material Management, Head of the Department (Appeal), Coal India Ltd; “Coal Bhawan", Action Area at:1A, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O + P.S.- Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156 (W.B); 4. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, Kutchery Road, P.O GPO, Ranchi, P.S.- Lalpur, Ranchi-834029. -- ....Respondents、 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate -- C.A.V ON 08/08/2024 PRONOUNCED ON 31/08/2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of punishment dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure-6); whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of reduction of two stages lower for a period of 6 months in time scale of pay without cumulative effect and also the appellate order dated 22.11.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected (Annexure-9). 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Executive Trainee (Mining) on 04.09.1993. On 08.09.2021, a charge-sheet was issued 1 against the petitioner under Rule 30.3 of Coal India Executive Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. On 01.05.2022, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report as the charges being partially proved. Thereafter, on 06.07.2022, the petitioner submitted his objection; however on 14.09.2022 the order of punishment has been imposed upon this petitioner, whereby it was ordered for reduction of two stages lower for a period of 6 months in time scale of pay without cumulative effect. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court against the order of punishment, but the same was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Chairman, C.I.L. Finally, the appellate order has been passed.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards role of this petitioner which was only to the extent of supervising the quality of coal and timely dispatch in quality and quantity as per the agreement. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-9 which is the appellate order and specifically requested this Court to see running page-156 of the writ application and submits that even the appellate authority has opined as under: It is size true ensuring of that “ crushed/uncrushed coal is the responsibility of Siding In-charge as well as Area Sales Manager, but the appellant as Project Officer was duty bound to ensure that the terms and conditions of special e-auction to supply (-) 100 mm coal to non-core sector was duly complied.” Relying upon the aforesaid observation made by the appellate authority, he contended that it is evident that the charge made against this petitioner is Non-Est in the eye of law; inasmuch as, it was the duty of Siding In-charge as well as Area Sales Manager and the appellant was the Project Officer; as such the order of punishment as well as the order in appeal has no legs to stand in the eye of law. 2 5. The further contention of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer did not find the charge to be proved; as such the disciplinary authority should not have differed from the observation given by the enquiry officer; and in this regard, the law is well settled that if the disciplinary authority is not agreeable with the observation of Enquiry Officer, he should issue a show-cause with a note of discontent and thereafter giving opportunity to the petitioner pass an order; but this procedure has not been followed in the instant case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no procedural irregularity in the entire departmental proceeding and the same has been conducted in accordance with the Rules governing the petitioner and after going through the order of punishment and the appellate order, it would transpire that the same is well reasoned order and each and every aspect of the matter has been discussed by both the authorities. As a matter of fact, the petitioner, who is relying upon the last paragraph of the appellate order itself shows that since he was Project Officer he should have definitely looked into the matter whether it was a crushed coal or cubic coal; as such no interference is required in the instant case. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that from the report of enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority differed from his opinion and thereafter he issued a fresh show-cause with note of discontent, to which the petitioner duly replied and finally the order of punishment has been imposed, wherein the disciplinary authority has categorically held in the internal page-3 of its order that the petitioner is trying to shift his entire responsibility upon the Siding Manager and Area sales manager, but nevertheless these authorities are also responsible for ensuring assured quantity, quality and size of 3 coal to consumers to achieve consumer satisfaction, but the petitioner as Project Officer cannot be absolved of his responsibilities to ensure supply of quality, quantity and sized coal to consumers as per terms of e-auction as his key task which he did not ensure in disregard to OM dated 30.03.2020 of GM P/PC), CIL, Kolkata. It further appears that the work profile of Project Officer is for ensuring quality of coal and timely discharge in quantity and quality as per agreement. This does not mean that he will shut his eyes in ignoring the size of coal as to whether it is a crushed coal or the cubic coal. 8. This Court does not find any error in the finding given by this disciplinary authority to the extent that the petitioner cannot be absolved of his responsibility to ensure supply of quality, quantity and size of coal to the consumers. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority has dealt each and every objection raised by the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. As a matter of fact, even the appellate authority has dealt each and every ground of the petitioner and had observed that the supply of (+) 100 mm coal with mixed coal to non-core consumers is in violation of the terms of e-auction and the coal found lying on the platform no. 1 was a mixture of ROM and crushed cola of (-) 100 size. He has further observed that no arrangement was made to avoid mixing of coal at the siding. He has also observed that ensuring size of crushed/uncrushed coal is the responsibility of Siding In-charge as well as Area Sales Manager, but the appellant being the Project Officer was duty bound to ensure that the terms and conditions of special e- auction to supply (-)100 mm coal to non-core sector was duly complied. As a matter of fact, the petitioner cannot shut his eyes only by saying that it was the duty of Siding Manager and Area Sales Manager. Further, as observed by the disciplinary authority that those Siding Manager and Area sales manager 4 are also responsible for ensuring assured quantity, quality and size of coal to consumers to achieve consumer satisfaction, but the petitioner as Project Officer cannot be absolved of his responsibilities to ensure supply of quality, quantity and sized coal to consumers as the petitioner being the Project Officer was curiously liable to ensure that the terms of e-auction should be complied. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by both the
Decision
authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Jk/AFR (Deepak Roshan, J.) 5