M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.12.1994 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Chairman -cum -Managing Director, BCCL) by which the petitioner has been demoted to next lower grade for a period of two years in a departmental proceeding and further for quashing the appellate order dated 18.1.1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Chairman, Coal India Ltd.) by which the punishment given by the disciplinary authority has been reduced to the extent of demotion to the next lower grade for a period of one year. The petitioner was working on the post of Agent E -5 scale under the respondents since 1988. In 1993 the petitioner was served with a charge -sheet issued by the Director Technical, BCCL in which two charges were levelled against him alongwith two other officers, namely, Sri R.R. Tewary, Senior Mining Engineer and Sri S.K. Sinha, Manager. The charges were that they failed to maintain devotion to duty and their was negligence in the performance of duty. The charges are based on the allegations that they failed to carry out the duties and responsibilities as specified in Mines and Regulations Act and the Rules made thereunder. It was further alleged that during the period of negligence causality took place in the Mines. All the three officers submitted their show -cause and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them. One Mr. R.V. Eradey, General Manager (Enquiries) was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after hearing the parties submitted a detailed inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer held that charges against the two officers, namely. Senior Mining Engineer and the Manager has been partly proved, inasmuch as they failed to exercise sufficient control over the subordinate staff with respect to the enforcement of the above regulations. However, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges of misconduct against the petitioner has not been proved. After submission of the charge -sheet, the Chairman -cum -Managing Director being the disciplinary authority after giving liberty of hearing to the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment by demoting him to the next lower grade for a period of 2 years. The petitioner filed a departmental appeal and the appellate authority reduced the punishment to demotion to the next lower grade for a period of 1 year.
(3.) MR . V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned orders of punishment as being illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel submitted that when the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer he has first to record reasons of such disagreement and ought to have served it upon the petitioner for filing their show -cause/representation. It was only thereafter that the disciplinary authority should have passed order of punishment after recording a conclusive finding to the effect that on the basis of evidence charges have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has not adopted this procedure and therefore, the order of punishment can not be sustained in law. Learned counsel in this regard relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (1999) 7 SCC 84 which principles was followed in subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 739.;