Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, who is the disciplinary authority. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as an Executive Engineer (Civil) in the year 1977. A Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2002. The Articles of Charges are extracted below: ARTICLE -I Alleged that Shri N.K. Srivastava in his capacity as Chief Engineer (Civil)/Staff Officer (Civil) of Want North Area, WCL at the relevant time was well aware of the inconsistencies involved in cancellation of Letter of Intent issued in favour of M/s. J.V.S. Construction, (L -1 party) vide No. WCL/WNA/AHQ/Civil/99/333 dated 18.8.99 against N.I.T. No. 03/99 -2000 dated 24/31.5.99 on percentage rate basis issued by Shri G.S.R. Murthy, the then SO (Civil) of the Area and was also aware of the manner in which the said party was put to undue pressure for succumbing to the vested interest of Shri J.M. Gupta, the then General Manager of the Area through an ill -designed scheme orchestrated by Shri Gupta as described in the Imputation of charge at Annexure -II. Despite having the knowledge of the case, as aforesaid, Shri N.K. Srivastava connived with and acted under undue influence of Shri Gupta in as much as that he got fresh estimates initiated through Shri R.N. Deshmukh, the then SE (Civil), Ukni OC Project as detailed at Para -3 of Annexure -II for the works covered in the said original tender in split manner, contravening the extant provisions, recommended the estimates for approval of the then General Manager, Wani North Area and thereafter issued afresh tender notice vide No. 18/99 -2000 under his signature in which he split the work into three, contrary to the extant provisions. ARTICLE -II Alleged that in furtherance to above, Shri N.K. Srivastava finalised the said tender through the Tender Committee Recommendations separately prepared for each work after splitting of the work of original tender and issued L.O.I./Work Order to three different parties for a total value of Rs. 23,87,080.58 (excluding the work of earthen mound) against the percentage rate of Rs. 17,13,754.21 (including the work of earthen mound) concluded against the original tender notice 03/99 -2000 due to which the company was put to an unwarranted expense of Rs. 6,73,326.37 as an additional financial burden as per the calculations given at Para -4 of Annexure -II, even with lesser scope of work.
(2.) ON conclusion of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted and second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 17/21.07.2003 to make a representation on the penalty proposed. The petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4138 of 2003 challenging the memorandum dated 17/21.07.2003 however, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 23.08.2003. The petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 613 of 2003 which was also dismissed by order dated 13th August, 2004. In the meantime, the petitioner sent a fax message dated 25th August, 2003 seeking one week's time for filing his reply to the show -cause notice and by representation dated 28.08.2003, the petitioner requested the authorities to wait for the decision in L.P.A. No. 613 of 2003 however, by order dated 5th September, 2003, the order of penalty of "reduction of pay of Shri N.K. Srivastava to Rs. 19,500/ - i.e. the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for the remaining part of his service with effect from 01.09.2003", was passed. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating as under; 6. That in reply to the points formulated in paragraph -2(i) of the writ petition, it is stated and submitted that the action of the Respondent is neither arbitrary nor malafide. It is also not against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner was advised to submit his representation against the proposed penalty by a Memorandum dated 17/21.7.2003 within 15 days time from the receipt of such Memorandum. It is submitted that the said Memorandum was received by the petitioner on 11/8/2003 and on expiry of 15 days therefrom, the Disciplinary Authority was at liberty to issue the final order in absence of any representation from the petitioner. However, accepting the request made by the petitioner vide his FAX dated 25/8/2003, the Disciplinary Authority kept the issuance of final order pending for further one week's time, as the petitioner had promised to submit the representation within a week. However, even on expiry of this period, no representation was received by the management of Western Coalfields Limited and consequently the order dated 5/9/2003 was passed. 14. That the statements made in paragraph -16 are matters of record. It is stated that inspite of the knowledge of the petitioner that 15 days time was allowed to submit his representation to the proposed punishment which was duly received by him on 11/8/2003 and within one weeks time as prayed for by him also expired, no representation was made by the petitioner.
(3.) HEARD counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.;