Union of India and Others vs O.P. Manchanda

R.V. Raveendran, C.J.

The respondent retired as Director (Technical) of Northern Coal Fields Limited on 30.09.1991. A charge-sheet dated 2C.09.1991 was served on him on 04.10.1991 alleging certain misconduct when he was functioning as General Manager, Kusunda area, BCCL during 1977-1978. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached this Court in Misc. petition No. 1745/1992 for quashing the charge-sheet dated 20.09.1991 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings, contending that the charge-sheet was highly belated.

As there was no stay, an inquiy was conducted and by order dated 15.04.1997 a punishment of stoppage of 100% gratuity was imposed. Though an appeal was filed against the said order on 28.04.1997, no order was passed thereon. The respondent therefore got the petition amended for quashing the order dated 15.04.1997 and for a direction to release the gratuity with interest at 18% per annum. He also sought interest at the rate of 18%> on the leave salary of Rs.63,743.60 from 01.10.1991 to 08.08.1997, as it was belatedly released.

The learned Single Judge by order dated 06.07.2004 has allowed the petition. The order dated 15.04.1997 imposing punishment of withholding of 100% gratuity has been quashed with a direction to pay the gratuity amount. He also directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the gratuity amount and leave salary amount. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

The learned Single Judge has quashed the order imposing punishment on three grounds: (i) The charge-sheet was highly belated having been issued in the year 1991 in regard to incident which is stated to have been occurred in the year 1977-1978; (ii) The charge-sheet was served after the respondent retired from service; and (iii) The respondent was cleared by the vigilance department for promotion and he had been promoted as Chief Mining Engineer in 1981, further promoted as Chief General Manager in 1986 and again promoted as Director (Technical) in December, 1987.

We find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. In The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another, where the department did not issue a charge memo for more than 12 years without any satisfactory explanation, the disciplinary proceedings were quashed on the ground that it would be unfair to permit such an enquiry. A similar view was reiterated in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan, . The appellant has not been able to make out any infirmity in the first and third grounds assigned by the learned Single Judge for quashing the order imposing punishment. The two grounds are sufficient to uphold the order of the learned Single Judge. It is not therefore necessary to examine the correctness of the second ground, with reference to Rule 34.2 of Coal India Limited Discipline & Conduct Rules, 1978. We leave that question open. As a consequence of quashing of the order imposing punishment, the respondent was entitled for payment of gratuity amount with interest. So far as leave salary is concerned, it is not in dispute that release was delayed by seven years and, therefore, grant of interest on the leave salary amount is also proper. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.