M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been filed against the judgment dated 15.10.1996 passed in CWJC No. 3193/94 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ application and quashed the order dated 13.9.1994 passed by Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi by which petitioner was terminated from service and order dated 4.10.1994 by which petitioner was directed to handover charge of all the records, materials etc.
(2.) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner respondent was appointed as Assistant Store Keeper under the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation, Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy. He was working at Central Hospital, Dhanbad. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 in the year 1983. In the departmental proceeding he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 13.1.1987. Petitioner then filed appeal before the competent authority which was dismissed on 4.1.1988. He thereafter challenged the order of dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, by a reasoned order quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. The Tribunal accordingly directed the appellant to reinstate the petitioner. However, it was left open to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of memorandum of charges and inquiry report, after furnishing copy of the inquiry report and after affording opportunity of hearing. It appears that the competent authority again proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding which ended by order dated 3.3.1990 whereby petitioner was held guilty and his annual increment of pay was stopped for two years. Petitioner was allowed subsistence allowance for the period of suspension but not at the enhanced rate. Petitioner accordingly joined the service under respondent No. 1 and opted the service condition of BCCL, a subsidiary of Coal India. Ltd. Petitioner thereafter, filed representation before the higher authority for allowing subsistence allowance as per the corresponding rules. On receipt of the representation, the concerned appellant instead of allowing subsistence allowance issued notices to the petitioner, vide order dated 13.9.1993 asking him show cause as to why punishment should not be enhanced from stoppage of increment to dismissal from service under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Petitioner filed show cause raising several questions including the question of jurisdiction of appellant Dy. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Coal. On receipt of show cause, the appellant passed order of dismissal of the petitioner from service, vide order dated 13.4.1994. On the basis of the said order of dismissal the appellant namely, Manager of BCCL directed the petitioner to handover charge of records/ materials etc. The said order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner respondent in CWJC No. 3193/1994 (R).
(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 and 5 namely, Government of India, Ministry of Coal contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. Their case in the counter affidavit was that petitioner was initially employee of the Central Government. The Staff and Institution of Ex -Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation were transferred to different subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. in different phases. The Central Hospital, Dhanbad, where that petitioner was posted was transferred to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. with effect from 1.8.1985. The remaining institution and Staff of Ex -Coal Mines Labour Organisation were transferred to subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. after passing of the Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Repealed) Act, 1986 with effect from 1.10.1986. It appears that while the petitioner was an employee under Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and hence he was not allowed to exercise option for absorption of his service in the subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. In the departmental proceeding he was dismissed from service but the order of dismissal was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The disciplinary authority accordingly, proceeded against the petitioner and by order dated 3.3.1990 petitioner was held guilty of charges and his annual increment was stopped for two years and he was allowed subsistence allowance during the period of suspension but not at the enhanced rate. Petitioner thereafter, joined his service under respondent No. 1, BCCL. a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. He was thereafter allowed to opt service condition and he opted the service condition of subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that in 1990, petitioner requested the disciplinary authority for payment of full pay for the period of his suspension. The matter was considered with D.O.P.T. and Chief Vigilance Officer and it was decided to invoke the revisionary power of the President under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering his show cause, the order of dismissal was passed vide order dated 13.9.1994. The respondent lastly stated that since the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while he was in service Coal Mines Labour Welfare Organisation, the order of dismissal passed by the President of India even after transfer of the service to Coal India Ltd. is not bad in law.;