DHANESHWAR RAWANI Vs. B.C.C.L. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.09.2005 passed by the Project Officer, North Tisra Colliery by which a punishment of recovery of Rs. 62,000/ - from the salary of the petitioner and demotion to the next lower grade i.e., from Grade I to Grade II has been imposed.

(2.) THE petitioner in the year 1995 was posted as Assistant Store Keeper in Alkusha Colliery, Kustore area No. 9, of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'BCCL'), Dhanbad. The petitioner was deputed to bring 102 meters of S.D.L. Cable which was needed by Alkusha Colliery from the Regional Store, Kustore. On 14.08.1995, the required S.D.L. Cable was brought from Ekra Central Store to Kustore Regional Store and thereafter the same was issued to Alkusha Colliery on same day. With respect to the incident of 14.08.1995, the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet vide letter issued by the Project Officer/Agent (respondent No. 2) dated 18.12.2000 in which the petitioner was charged with the act of misconduct and negligence of duty on account of the fact that although the petitioner had collected 102 meters of type 7 S.D.L. Cable from the Regional Store, Kustore, but on opening it was found to contain only 37.20 meters of Cable which was short by about 62.70 meters worth Rs. 62,000/ -. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on 25.12.2000 and thereafter notice of inquiry was served upon him dated 23.03.2001 fixing the date of inquiry as 06.04.2001. Another notice of inquiry dated 06.04.2001 was issued to the petitioner fixing the date of inquiry as 30.04.2001. On completion of the inquiry, an inquiry report dated 10.07.2001 was submitted in which the charges against the petitioner in terms of Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL was found proved. The petitioner was served with a second show -cause notice on 01.09.2005 on which the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of recovery of Rs. 62,000/ - in 12 equal installments from his salary and demotion to the next lower grade i.e., from Grade I to Grade II.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceeding including the inquiry which was conducted on the charge served upon the petitioner was illegal, perverse and perfunctory in nature. It has been submitted that the petitioner in his capacity of Assistant Store Keeper in Alkusha Colliery, Kustore area No. 9 M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad was deputed to bring 102 meters of S.D.L. Cable on 14.08.1995 for which a requisition was given to bring the said materials from Regional Store, Kustore. It has been submitted that since the material was not available at Regional Store, Kustore, the same was brought from Ekra Central Store from where it was transmitted subsequently on the same date to Alkusha Colliery. It has been submitted that the material which was brought by the petitioner was in a sealed condition for which an entry was also made on 14.08.1995 and the seal was opened in the presence of the Manager and Store Keeper of Alkusha Colliery whereupon the same was found to be short by 62.70 meters which was worth Rs. 62,000/ -. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the inquiry report, the contention of the petitioner has been substantiated by the statement of the witnesses, but without specifying the reasons the inquiry officer had come to a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. It has also been submitted that the inquiry officer had implicated the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not able to prove his innocence. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that it was for the respondents to prove the charges in the inquiry proceeding, but the inquiry officer had taken a contrary stand to the settled principle of law fixing responsibility upon the petitioner for not being able to disprove the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further adds that Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders relates to minor punishment, but the petitioner has been imposed a major punishment of recovery of the alleged loss caused to the company as well as demoting him from Grade I to Grade II. Adding further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated solely for the reason that although the incident is said to have taken place on 14.08.1995, the memo of charge was served upon the petitioner after more than 5 years and on conclusion of the inquiry, the second show -cause notice was issued on 01.09.2005 and therefore, it has been submitted that from the date of the alleged incident till the date of issuance of the order of punishment more than 10 years had lapsed and no explanation had been given by the respondents with respect to the inordinate delay and such delay has for obvious reasons caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Continuing with his argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved, in such circumstances also the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate and is contrary to Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders.