D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE , in this writ application, is to the order dated -22.10.2003 (Annexure -8), passed by the Respondent No. 2, whereby a penalty of reduction to the next lower Grade for a period of two years with cumulative effect, has been imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the order of the appellate authority communicated to him vide letter dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure -10), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of his punishment has been dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner's case in brief is as follows: (i) The petitioner is in employment under the Respondent -B.C.C.L. in the Officers Grade E. -5, with all benefits of service. He was posted at the Putki Balihari Area of the B.C.C. L. as its Area Sales Officer with effect from 12.11.1993. (ii) On the charge, tint he had failed to ensure implementation of the duly notified grade notification of coal during his tenure at the Putki Balihari Area, resulting in passing of Steel -I Grade Coal as Steel Grade II and thereby causing huge loss to the Respondent - Company, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He submitted his explanation to the charges, stating that since he had joined on transler at the Pulki Balihari Area in the last week of November, 993 and as such, the fault of non - implementation of the tacking arrangements as per the Company's Notification, during the period between 01.04.1993 till prior to his date of joining, cannot be attributed to him. He had also pleaded that the stacking arrangements for different grades of coal at the production/dispatch point, do not fall within the ambit of his duties and responsibilities as Area Sales Officer and that such responsibility was the exclusive duty of the Colliery Management. Me had also tried to explain that the sale orders issued by him were in conformity with the grade wise production and stock statement submitted by the management of the concerned Colliery to him and during the period between 12.11.1993 to August, 1994, the Management of the concerned Colliery did not report any stock or production of Steel Grade I coal. (iii) After conducting enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, the enquiry was concluded by the Enquiry Officer by recording a finding that the charge was not proved against the petitioner. (iv) However, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, namely the Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry Report, and calling upon the petitioner to submit his show cause replies. (v) In response to the notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed replies explaining all the circumstances, which he deemed relevant. (vi) By the impugned order, the disciplinary authority proceeded to punish the petitioner for the charges by demoting him to the next lower Grade for a period of two years with cumulative effect. (vii) The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of his punishment was dismissed by the disciplinary authority by the impugned order Explaining the grounds for assailing both the impugned orders, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the impugned orders are bad in law and not sustainable, basically because while differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority did not assign any reason for differing from the findings of the Enquiry officer and neither did he give his own findings on the basis of the evidences on record. Learned Counsel argues that such conduct of the disciplinary authority was against the provisions of Rule 30.1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. 1978. It is further argued that the impugned order dated -22.08.2003 (Annexure -8) is apparently cryptic in nature without discussion of any evidence, devoid of any statements relating to the facts or circumstances of the case and of the pleadings of the petitioner stated in his defence and is therefore, perverse and is against the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel argues further that the impugned order of the appellate authority also suffers from the same vice as because the same was passed without application of mind by merely adopting the order of the disciplinary authority.
(3.) REFUTING the claim of the petitioner, the Respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The stand taken by the Respondents is that there is no perversity, much less illegality, in the impugned order of punishment. The petitioner was given due and reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the departmental enquiry. Though the enquiry officer may have found the petitioner not guilty of the charge, but the disciplinary authority had every right to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and to impose punishment upon the delinquent employee upon being satisfied that the charge has been proved.;