SURYAPRAKASH T Vs. SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges Rule 24.4 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1989 of the respondent-company, as unconstitutional. The rule reads as follows: 24.4. During the period of suspension the employee shall not enter the work-place/office premises except with the written permission of the suspending authority or any other authority competent to give such permission, nor shall he/she leave station without the written permission of the competent authority. No leave shall be granted during the period of suspension. The petitioner was working as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer in the respondent-company when he was suspended by order dated 29-12-1992 pending inquiry into certain irregularities for which charges were framed by letter dated 27-4-1993. In the letter of suspension, his headquarters was fixed at Ramakrishnapuram. The petitioner states that all the facilities available to an employee on duty at Ramakrishnapuram such as gun-man, watchman, conveyance, telephone connection etc., have been withdrawn and he was also prohibited from visiting the offices with the result that he was unable to contact the office for permission to go to Hyderabad where his wife was ill, and his letters and personal requests for re-consideration of the embargo on leaving the headquarters failed to evoke any response. It is also stated that for his alleged absence from the headquarters, deductions have been made from the subsistence allowance in spite of his furnishing the certificate that he was not employed elsewhere. He thereafter filed writ petition No. 493 of 1994 for payment of full subsistence allowance which lead to writ appeal No. 1246 of 1994 where a direction was given to the respondent to pay subsistence allowance to the extentof the full salary without any deduction considering the long delay in completing the departmental - enquiry, and reserved the right of the petitioner to challenge Rule 24.4, the subject matter of this writ petition. It is pointed out that the enquiry is being carried on at Hyderabad from 5-1-1994 and there is no indication of the time that will be taken. It is further stated that by withdrawing the facilities and keeping the petitioner at a remote place, he was being exposed to the risk of danger to life and he is undergoing a kind of social boycott which is a greater punishment than what may be given even he is found guilty of misconduct in the enquiry.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rule itself was void relying on the decisions in N.N. Bhattacharjee vs. Secy, to Govt. of W.B.; Bhabesh Kumar vs. State; and Zonal Manager, F.C.I, vs. Khaleel Ahmed. He also argued that full salary was being paid as subsistence allowance without putting him on duty and therefore there was no purpose in requiring him to be at the headquarters particularly when the enquiry was being held at Hyderabad. He, therefore, pleaded for allowing freedom of movement.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the rule was valid and was incidental to the holding of an effective enquiry. It was submitted that the petitioner was required to be away from Hyderabad because the transactions in respect of which misconduct was alleged happened at Hyderabad and the witnesses were in Hyderabad It was also stated that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, a letter was written on 24-6-1995 by the General Manager informing the petitioner that during his stay at the headquarters, he will be provided with the usual facilities such as transport, medical, health, dub etc., as well as giving him quarters with phone and whenever he was required to attend to emergency work he may obtain prior written permission before leaving the headquarters.