Noel Runda vs The Central Coal field Limited and Others

S. Chandrashekhar, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 23/24.11.2011 whereby punishment

of ""stoppage of one increment with the cumulative effect"" has been passed against the petitioner. A prayer for quashing the charge-sheet as well as

the enquiry report dated 11.8.2011 has also been made in the present writ petition. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that, the

petitioner was appointed as Assistant Storekeeper in the year, 1974 and in the year, 1979 he was given charge as Storekeeper. The petitioner was

promoted to the post of Senior Storekeeper in the year, 1988 and in the year, 1997 he was promoted as Chief Storekeeper. It is also stated that

thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Chief Storekeeper (a non-Executive post). On 29.3.2009, a show-cause notice was issued to the

petitioner to which he replied on 14.4.2009 and on 3.8.2009. However, as the explanation of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, a charge-

memo dated 10.2.2010 was issued to the petitioner on the allegation that while posted as Storekeeper at Khas Mahal between the period

2.7.1996 to 8.5.1997, he failed to check receipt and proper filing of documents. A departmental proceeding was initiated and an enquiry report

was submitted on 11.8.2011. The disciplinary authority passed the penalty order of ""stoppage of one increment with the cumulative effect"".

Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 stating that the charge against the petitioner was serious as he failed to

check the filing of reports etc. while working in the Khas Mahal project of C.C.L., B & K Area and therefore, a regular departmental enquiry was

initiated. Charge against the petitioner was found proved and therefore, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of penalty.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged period of misconduct is between 2.7.1996 and 8.5.1997 whereas,

the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.3.2009 and a charge-memo was supplied to the petitioner on 10.2.2010 and there is no

explanation for initiation of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner after a lapse of about 14 years and on this ground alone the entire

proceeding against the petitioner including the penalty order is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the

Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another,

As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and after a full-

fledged enquiry, a report was submitted and after considering the said report, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of penalty and

therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the penalty order on the ground that memorandum of charge was issued to him after a lapse of

about 14 years. Moreover, the petitioner has not availed alternative remedy by approaching the appellate authority.

A perusal of the documents on record more particularly, the memorandum of charge dated 10.2.2010 would reveal that there is no explanation

whatsoever for initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner after a lapse of about 14 years. The enquiry report also does not deal with

this aspect of the matter. It is an admitted position that after 1997, the petitioner has been granted promotion on the post of Chief Storekeeper and

Chief Storekeeper (a non-Executive post) and therefore, it can be safely concluded that the department condoned the misconduct, if any,

committed by the petitioner. Moreover, the disciplinary authority has also not considered this aspect of the matter. Initiation of a departmental

enquiry against an employee ensues serious consequences and it cannot be taken so lightly.

In "" The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:--

The appeal against the order dated December 16, 1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings

merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree

with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the

years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987.

According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were

going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as

stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view mat it

will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the

Tribunal''s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.

Adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, this Court is not sitting over an appeal to the order passed by the departmental enquiries, I find that this is not the case

here. In the present case the petitioner has raised a question of law which does hot require any adjudication or appraisal of the evidence which

were led before the enquiry officer. Further, the plea of the respondents that the petitioner has not availed of alternative remedy is also not

applicable, in view of the fact that this is hot the requirement in law that in each and every case before approaching the Writ Court, a person must

avail the alternative remedy available to him. In view of the glaring illegality in initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, the

petitioner was not required to approach the appellate authority. Me has rightly approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In view of

the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed quashing the order of penalty dated 23/24.11.2011.