South Eastern Coalfield Limited And Ors vs Anil Kumar

@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT

Parth Prateem Sahu , J

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.4193 of 2018 whereby the

learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge-sheet issued by the appellant-company against the respondent-employee

granting liberty in favour of appellant-company for issuing a fresh charge-sheet in accordance with Standard Standing Order.

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, respondent-employee was appointed on the post of General Mazdoor Category-1 vide order dated 08.01.2008

as land oustee under the relevant R&R Policy. It was submitted that respondent-employee was appointed in service being maternal grandson of

Mitthu Lal. After his appointment, one complaint was received by the office of appellant-company against respondent-employee that Anil Kumar was

appointed as Vice President in Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur and one Vimal Kumar was working with appellant-company in the name of Anil

Kumar. The complaint was forwarded to concerned Police Station and Crime No.91/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code has been registered against him. The complaint as received by appellant-company was examined by Officers of the Company.

After enquiry, appellant-company also found some substance in the complaint that respondent-employee got employment by impersonating him to be

Anil Kumar whereas he is not Anil Kumar, but Vimal Kumar and Anil Kumar is his brother.

The appellant-company issued charge-sheet on 20-21.09.2016 mentioning that respondent-employee is working against the appointment of Anil

Kumar Jaiswal whereas Anil Kumar Jaiswal after contesting the election of Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, was elected as Vice President and

discharging duties of Vice President.

In the said charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that aforementioned act of respondent-employee comes under 'misconduct' as per Sections 26.01 and

26.09 of the Standard Standing Order.

The charge-sheet was challenged by respondent-employee before the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition (S) No.633 of 2017. The learned

Single Judge on due consideration of pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner therein, disposed off the writ petition in

terms of order passed in case of Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others decided on 31.10.2017 in Writ Petition (S)

No.4099 of 2017.

In pursuance to the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.633 of 2017, appellant-company issued a fresh charge-sheet on

05-07.05.2018.

The said charge-sheet dated 05-07.05.2018 was again made to challenge by respondent-employee before the High Court by way of filing Writ

Petition (S) No.4193 of 2018. The learned Single Judge while considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for respondent-

employee, allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge-sheet issued in favour of respondent-employee by observing thus :-

“9. This Court thus set asides the charge-sheet issued and the departmental enquiry initiated by the respondents with liberty to the respondents to

issue a fresh charge-sheet in accordance with the standard standing order and also ensure that the charge-sheet is issued in a proper format with

specif articles of charges, the list of document and list of witness. Further the respondents also are directed to follow the observation of Supreme

Court in the case of “State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram†(supra) as also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

“Shri Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and Others†reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515 and shall also take care of it during the

departmental proceedings.â€​

The order passed by learned Single Judge on 27.06.2018 was challenged by appellant-company by filing Review Petition No.92 of 2019 wherein

they have pleaded that respondent-employee has not brought to the notice of learned Single Judge true facts and out of two pages of charge-sheet,

only one page was enclosed as Annexure A/2, which mentions the list of witnesses and list of documents as well as the material allegation and

description of charges. The review petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.06.2019 mentioning therein that specific details

of charges levelled and in particular 'misconduct' under the Standing Order or the service regulations governing the service conditions of delinquent

employee has not been mentioned.

Aggrieved by the orders passed in Writ Petition (S) No.4193 of 2018 as well as Review Petition No.92 of 2018, made the appellant-company to

approach this Court by way of filing present writ appeal.

Shri VVS Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-company submits that in the writ petition, respondent-employee has

raised a ground that charge-sheet issued by appellant-company was not in accordance with law as charge-sheet does not mention the list of witnesses

and list of documents and on that basis, writ petition filed by the respondent-employee was allowed. He further submits that the contention of the

petitioner is not correct as the second charge-sheet issued to petitioner is of two pages. In second page, list of witnesses and list of documents are

mentioned, but the petitioner suppressed the part of the page with the relevant page of charge-sheet. The imputation of charge is very specific and

clear. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge fell into error in holding that the article of charges is not clear and specific as well it was not in

format.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record carefully.

Perusal of record would show that after passing an order in the first writ petition, appellant-company has issued a fresh charge-sheet on 05-

07.05.2018 and in second page of charge-sheet, list of witnesses and list of documents are mentioned. Perusal of writ petition would also show that

charge-sheet dated 05-07.05.2018 is filed as Annexure P/1, in which, it is specifically mentioned in the bottom of internal page No.1 as **dze'k%

i`@2**, but the second page has not been filed in continuation of page-1, and second page of charge-sheet has been filed as part of Annexure P/5.

The appellant-company along with writ appeal has filed second charge-sheet issued against respondent-employee as Annexure A/7 and the said

document is a complete document, in which, at first page, details of charges have been mentioned and in second page, list of witnesses and list of

documents have been mentioned.

In view of aforementioned facts, we find some force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-company that appellant-company

has issued a fresh charge-sheet along with list of witnesses and list of documents, but respondent-employee has failed to place list of witnesses and list

of documents, which is a part of charge-sheet Annexure P/1 at appropriate place.

The record would further show that after receiving charge-sheet dated 05-07.05.2018, respondent-employee wrote a letter to Deputy General

Manager (Mining) that the documents given to him were not complete documents as mentioned in the list of documents from Sl.No.1 to 23. In the

aforementioned letter, respondent-employee has not raised any further ground, but the gist of the letter would show that he has only mentioned that

complete documents were not provided to him. The aforementioned letter also shows that respondent-employee has not denied the fact of issuance of

list of witnesses and list of documents along with the charge-sheet, but his grievance was only with regard to non-supply of complete documents as

mentioned in the list of documents enclosed along with charge-sheet.

So far as second limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant-company is concerned, the charges levelled against the respondent-

employee in charge-sheet are very specific, it also contains the act of the employee, mentioning the act of respondent-employee comes within the

purview of 'misconduct' as per provisions of the Standard Standing Order. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet dated 05-07.05.2018 is reproduced

herein-below:-

’’

, ,

-

91/216 419, 420 0 0 0 11.04.2016

:-

:- 26.01 ,

:- 26.09 , , , ’’

16 The contents of charge-sheet bears in detail as to what act has been done by respondent-employee, which comes within the purview of

'misconduct' as envisaged under Sections 26.01 and 26. 09 of the Standard Standing Order.

In view of above, we find that charge levelled against the respondent-employee is very clear and it also mentions the provisions under which, the

act of respondent-employee comes within the purview of 'misconduct' of Standard Standing Order. The learned Single Judge in the writ petition has

set aside the charge-sheet mentioning therein that charge-sheet is not issued in proper format as specific article of charges, list of documents and list

of witnesses does not find place in the charge-sheet. But even when, review petition has been filed bringing it to the notice of the Court that

respondent-employee has not filed complete document as charge-sheet, but only part of it i.e. first page and second page bears the name of list of

witnesses and list of documents has not been filed, it was dismissed as specific details of charges and particularly 'misconduct' under the Standard

Standing Order is not mentioned in the charge-sheet.

We do not agree with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as in the review petition firstly because, the charge-

sheet bears list of witnesses and list of documents at page No.2 of the charge-sheet dated 05-07.05.2018 and secondly, the charge-sheet records the

act of respondent-employee in very specific terms as to how he committed 'misconduct' and further, it mentions that under what Sections of Standard

Standing Order, the act of respondent-employee comes within the purview of 'misconduct'. Merely non-issuing of the charge-sheet in the prescribed

format would itself not make the charge-sheet to be illegal. The purpose of issuing charge-sheet is to make an employee to understand the charges

levelled against him, the clauses of Service Rules and Standing Orders, under which, misconduct is committed so as to grant opportunity to employee

to submit effective reply in his defence.

It is to be seen that the charge-sheet is construed in a reasonable manner and much legalism may not be expected of a domestic enquiry. If apart

from inappropriately worded charge-sheet, there is no other incriminating circumstances having the effect of vitiating the proceedings culminating in an

order of penalty, it would be prudent exercise of judicial discretion not to interfere.

In the case at hand, reply was submitted by the respondent-employee without any objection to charge-sheet and also submitted letter with subject

that complete document was mentioned from Sl.No.1 to 23 with charge-sheet, not supplied. No prejudice is shown by the respondent-employee in

issuance of the charge-sheet, in its form.

The learned Single Judge initially has set aside the charge-sheet in second round of writ petition by observing that charge-sheet has not been

issued in proper format as article of charges, list of witnesses and list of documents do not from part of charge-sheet, and when it has been brought to

the notice of learned writ Court by way of filing of review petition, learned Single Judge dismissed the review petition by recording that details of

charges levelled and in particular, 'misconduct' under the provisions of Standard Standing Order is not forming part of charge-sheet.

As we have held that description of charges levelled against the respondent-employee has been given in detail as also the relevant provisions of

Standard Standing Order under which, act of respondent-employee is misconduct is also mentioned, the impugned order passed by learned Single

Judge is set aside. We direct the appellant-company to proceed further and conclude the pending departmental proceedings against the respondent-

employee in accordance with law at the earliest.

However, if the documents mentioned in charge-sheet issued to the respondent-employee are not complete or not supplied then the appellant-

company may make available the documents to the respondent-employee as per rules subject to filing of application in this regard.

In view of above, the writ appeal stands allowed, with the aforesaid observation.