M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 23.4.1992 passed in CWJC No. 1389/91 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant.
(2.) THE writ petition was filed by the petitioner -appellant for quashing the letter dated 26.7.1990 issued by the concerned respondent whereby petitioner was informed that the departmental proceeding against him would continue and further for quashing entire departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner by filing amendment application in the writ petition also prayed infer alia for a declaration that Rule 34.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules framed by respondent No. 1, Coal India Limited is unconstitutional. Petitioner was Chief Mining Engineer under the respondent. On 13.10.1989, he was given a notice intimating him that he would superannuate with effect from 31.1.1990. The petitioner availed the benefit of leave travel concessions from 25.12.1989 to 24.1.1990. The petitioner on or about 23.1.1990 allegedly applied for extension of leave upto 31.1.1990. The said application was received on 30.1.1990 and was rejected on the same day. Petitioner admittedly superannuated with effect from 31.1.1990. Petitioner contended that on or about 15.2.1990, he was served with a charge -sheet dated 3.1.1990 in pursuance whereof he submitted his show -cause on 10.3.1990. An enquiry officer was appointed by the respondent who proceeded with departmental proceeding. Petitioner thereafter lodged a protest against the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that it could not have been initiated after superannuation, the said objection was rejected by order dated 26.7.1990, which was impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge formulated the following questions for consideration: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the departmental proceeding can be said to have been instituted against the petitioner before 31.1.1990. 2. Whether the charges contained in the charge -sheet dated 3.1.1990 as contained in Annexure -2 to the writ application constitute any misconduct within the meaning of the provisions of the said Rules; 3. Whether Rule 34.2 of the said Rules is unconstitutional and, thus, continuance of the departmental proceedings as against the petitioner, as has been directed by reasons of letter dated 26.7.1990 as contained in Annexure -7 is vitiated in law."
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge after considering the entire facts of the case and the law decided all the questions against the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.;