SHANKARI PRASAD NIYOGI Vs. B.C.C.L.
LAWS(JHAR)-2002-12-30
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on December 13,2002

Shankari Prasad Niyogi Appellant
VERSUS
B.C.C.L. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a Deputy Chief Material Manager of Bokaro and Kargali Area, Central Coalfield Limited (C.C.L. for short), Ranchi has challenged the departmental proceeding initiated by the Chairman/MG. Director. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (B.C.C.L. for short) vide memorandum having reference No. BCCL:EE:X:C:94:2001:778 dated 6/11/2001. The main grounds taken by the petitioner are that the aforesaid charge -sheet dated 6th November, 2001 is without jurisdiction and initiated for same set of charges for which earlier charge -sheet issued and on the ground of delay.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case shows that while the service of petitioner was placed under M/s. B.C.C.L. an order No. 798 dated 28th November, 1991 was placed with M/s. Malpani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and order No. PUR/040070/Cooper Roller Bearing Import/CCWO/94/0511 dated 06/12.12.1994 was placed directly with M/s. Cooper Roller Bearing Company Ltd., UK., some complaint of gross irregularity relating to purchase of cooper bearings in CCWO washeries during 1991 -92 was made by one Sri Lal Babu Rai of Rashtriya Koyla Salahakar Samiti by his letter dated 9th February, 1996. The Director. Government of India, Ministry of Coal directed to investigate the matter.The correspondences between the Ministry of Coal, New Delhi and M/s. B.C.C.L. continued. The petitioner, in the meantime, was promoted from E -4 to E -5 grade on 12th October, 1992 and from E -5 to MI grade on 12th June, 1997 and his service was placed under M/s. C.C.L. Thereafter, while the petitioner was awaiting his promotion to next higher M2 grade, the impugned charge -sheet vide Memorandum dated 6th November, 2001 was issued. Counsel for the petitioner relied on different facts to suggest that the authorities had knowledge of the charges and after long delay, they cannot initiate the proceeding. It was also submitted that the petitioner, in the meantime, having promoted to higher post, any report relating to period earlier than the year of promotion should not be considered for the purpose of enquiry. Reliance was also placed on one or other decision which will be discussed at appropriate place. The other submission was that the Chairman/Managing Director of M/s. B.C.C.L. has no jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding, the petitioner being an employee of M/s. Coal India Limited (C.I.L. for short) and now being posted under M/s. C.C.L.
(3.) THE respondents have refuted both the aforesaid pleadings. It is stated that the enquiry referred to by the petitioner was not a fact finding enquiry either in the nature of a preliminary enquiry or charge -sheet in a departmental proceeding. Prior to issuance of the charge -sheet vide Memorandum dated 6th November, 2001, no other departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. As regards the disciplinary authority, according to respondents, the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, M/s. B.C.C.L. is the disciplinary authority in relation to misconduct committed by an Executive while he was posted under M/s. B.C.C.L., a subsidiary Company of M/s. C.I.L. Further case of respondents is that the petitioner has already submitted his explanation to the charge -sheet and succumbed to the jurisdiction of the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of M/s. B.C.C.L. Although the matter relates to the year 1991, but on receiving complaint, the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad had registered a P.E. vide No. PE -7(A)/ 2000(D) dated 17th May, 2000 against the petitioner, Dy. M.M. (P), C.C.W.O., M/s. B.C.C.L., M/s. Malpani Impex Private Limited, Bombay and other unknown persons for committing irregularities in tender proceedings for purchase of cooper bearings for Bhojudih Washery. After making the enquiry, the C.B.I, recommended the following action : (i) Regular departmental action be initiated against Sri S.P. Neogi, the petitioner. (ii) Banning of business with M/s. Malpani Impex Private Limited. Considering the recommendations in its true perspective, the writ petitioner has been charge -sheeted. The respondents have denied that there has been a delay in issuing or serving the charge - sheet.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.