Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.
(2.) The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 8th December, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 27766 (W) of 2017 (Hari Shankar Sah vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner: - "This writ petition is directed against an order dated August 30/31, 2017 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein, rejecting the petitioner's application for review of the order passed by the appellate authority.This is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the appellate authority against the order of 'censure' passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner. Against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed an application for review and during the pendency of the application for review, he had taken out a writ petition which was dismissed by this Court on May 19, 2017, inter alia, holding that during the pendency of the application for review, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be gone into by the Court. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed with a direction upon the reviewing authority to consider and dispose of the application for review as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with law and the procedure laid down therefor.It appears from the order impugned that the respondent No. 2 had specifically observed that in terms of Rule 37.1 of the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, an appellate authority has no power to review his own order. The order specifically records that under Rule 37 of the relevant Rules, the appellate authority cannot review its own order and the Rules do not entitle a charged employee to seek a review under Rule 37 against an order passed by the appellate authority before the appellate authority or before the Board of Directors.Thus, on a very technical ground the petitioner is being rendered without a remedy. If under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules of the respondent No. 1 company, the review before the appellate authority was incompetent, it was imperative for the Coal India Limited to apprise the same to the Court. Merely mentioning that a review has been filed and then allowing the Court to pass the order directing the review to be disposed of is not what is expected of the respondents acting as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondents should also have mentioned that such a review was incompetent.I also do not find any reason why the respondent No. 2 entered into the merits of the review application if the review did not lie. The law on the point is very well settled that if an authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an application or the application does not lie, the authority does not have any jurisdiction to pass any order on merit.Mr. Mitra, the learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 submits that this had been done in deference to the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation which also appears from the penultimate paragraph of the order impugned.I must say that this is the result of mis-appreciation of the scope of the order passed earlier. All that the Court had directed the reviewing authority was to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and strictly in accordance with law and the procedure laid down therefor. If the relevant Rules did not permit the maintainability of the review before the appellate authority that would have been sufficient reason for not entertaining the application for review. The Court never directed the reviewing authority to dispose of the matter on merit as well when the application itself was not maintainable.However, it is not entirely correct to say that Rule 37.1 of the said Discipline and Appeal Rules, as quoted in the order impugned, renders the petitioner absolutely without a remedy. The Board of Directors of the Coal India Limited has been given the power to call for the records of an enquiry proceeding and review any order or pass necessary order as it may deem fit.In such view of it, I give liberty to the petitioner to take out an application for review to the Board of Directors of the Coal India Limited of the entire action taken against the petitioner as well as the order passed against him within a period of two weeks from date. In case any such application to the Board of Directors is made, the Board of Directors shall review the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, but positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application.However, I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of the case. This order shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion of the Court about the merits of the petitioner's case. The Board of Directors shall dispose of the application for review, if any such is made within a period two weeks, in accordance with law.Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for an affidavit all allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied.There shall be no order as to costs."
(3.) The instant appeal has been preferred by Coal India Limited.;