PAWAN KUMAR DOOKIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13/15/4/2024 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby memorandum of charge has been issued to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on the imputed charges under Rule 30 of the Coal Indian Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2021.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is working with respondent company and is currently posted as Dy. Manager (HR/Pers.)/ E-4 Grade, Manpower and Recruitment department Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli (M.P.). He belongs to the Cadre of Executives whose services conditions are governed by Coal India Executives' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2021'). The petitioner made a complaint against respondent no. 5 vide email dtd. 15/02/2024 raising an issue of misconduct regarding his omission of taking previous sanction from competent authority regarding securing employment to his son Mr. Abhishek Kumar in the Renusagar Thermal Project of Hindalco Industries with whom NCL had professional transactions.

(3.) It is pointed out that the Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'CIL') is a Maharatna company under the control of Ministry of Coal, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MOC'). The CIL has ten fully owned Indian subsidiary companies, out of which, the petitioner is working in one of the subsidiary company i.e. Northern Coalfield Limited, Singrauli. As the petitioner highlighted an issue with respect to appointment to son of the respondent No.5 without any previous sanction from the competent authority pointing out the fact the respondent No.5 had abused his authoritative position and had violated Clause 6 of the Coal India Executives' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1978'), the authorities being annoyed with the petitioner has issued a memorandum of charge on 13/15/4/2024 on the ground that the complaint made by the petitioner duly investigated by the respondent No.2 and the said complaint found to be false as it was not supported by any documents. It is argued that appointment of son of the respondent No.5 was found to be genuine and not in violation of Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 and the respondent No.5 was found to have not violated the Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 and a report was submitted by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. Based upon the same, a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner.