D K SAXENA Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Senior Personnel Officer in the Respondent No. 2 and has been removed from employment on a finding of proved misconduct by order dated 15-11-1991 (Annexure P-12 ). He challenges constitutional and legal validity of the said order of removal by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the respondents are Government companies of the Central Government and since they are fully financed and controlled by the said Government, they fall within the definition of 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also not in doubt that the officers like the petitioner are governed by Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. These rules are however not statutory and yet they govern service conditions of the petitioner and others as a part of their contract of employment. Since the respondents are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it is also not disputed that they are bound to ensure benefits of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the petitioner.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner, while working as Deputy Personnel Manager of Jamuna and Kotma Area of respondent No. 2, he is said to have committed several acts of misconduct and corruption. A charge-sheet dated 6-4-1989 (Annexure P-1) was therefore" served on him by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 detailing as many as 11 charges against the petitioner. These charges relate to irregularities in office procedure, fraudulently withdrawing the amount of the respondent-company, indiscriminate purchases without approval of the competent authority, embezzlement, misuse and misappropriation of money of the company etc. etc. The charge-sheet stated that this amounts to serious misconduct which may be visited by the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was therefore requested to send his-reply to the charges. The charge-sheet was also accompanied by statement of imputations giving necessary details of the charges. A list of documents in support of articles of charges detailing as many as 66 documents was also sent along with the charges. A list of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges mentioned (12 witnesses) was also given. A reading of the list of documents and list of witnesses indicates that the statements of witnesses were earlier recorded and included in the list of documents. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges and denied the same. Thereafter, one Shri H. P. Gupta, General Manager (IED) was appointed as Enquiry Officer for holding the enquiry into the matter. From the proceedings of the enquiry which had been made available to us by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of this writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner was permitted to inspect all the documents mentioned in the list attached to the charge-sheet. He was also granted facility of taking notes of the documents. It also appears that he asked for photo copies of those documents but the request was rejected. The enquiry seems to have started on 28-11-1989 and continued upto 5-4-1991. The witnesses against the petitioner were examined by the management and were cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter gave his written statement on 20-4-1991. Thereafter the evidence was examined by the enquiry officer who recorded his findings holding the petitioner guilty of charges Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 only. Charge No. 7 had so many heads but only (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (xi) were proved. Charges Nos. 6, 7 (i), 7 (iv), 7 (v) were found not proved. The report of the enquiry officer was submitted to the respondent No. 1 and was examined at various levels. The file indicates that the report received consideration of the Chairman of the respondent No. 1 who eventually passed the impugned order of removal.