BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. KAMAL PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25th August, 2000 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No.4, the Disciplinary Authority to complete the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law and till disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent No. 2 was restrained to interfere with the proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Colliery Manager, Kendua D Colliery of M/s East India Coal Co. Ltd. and was posted at Kendua, Dhanbad, Bihar. Thereafter, he resigned and joined Marine Coal Co. Bengal (P) Ltd. After the passing of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1972 the Government of India took over all the companies and formed Coal India Limited ( hereinafter referred to as CIL) under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. After taking over of the said Colliery, the same was amalgamated with other collieries and was renamed as Gopalichuck Colliery. Then the Government of India de-centralised the work of collieries and formed another company named Bharat Coking Coal Limited ( hereinafter referred to as BCCL) which is wholly owned as a subsidiary of Coal Limited and the Gopalichuck Colliery was transferred to the said new company. The petitioner is in administrative control of BCCL, respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is respondent No.4, Chairman cum Managing Director, BCCL. The petitioner is presently serving with BCCL, respondent No.3, a subsidiary of CIL. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 24th February,1997 by the General Manager, Lodhna Area along with other officers for certain acts of omission and commission. The petitioner along with other officers were charge sheeted for shortage of huge quantities of coal. An inquiry was conducted and the petitioner along with other officers were found guilty However, no punishment was awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. But before award of any punishment the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The petitioner is working in Executive Grade-6.

(3.) It was contended that according to Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1978) it is only respondent No. 4 i.e. Chairman cum Managing Director, BCCL is the Disciplinary Authority, who alone can award major penalty under Clause 27(ii) (b) to (d) and not the respondent No.2, Chairman Cum Managing Director of CIL who is the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the issue which was raised before the learned single was that the Chairman cum Managing Director of CIL is not a disciplinary authority and he is not competent to impose any punishment on the basis of the report of the inquiry and it is only Chairman cum Managing Director, BCCL, subsidiary of CIL alone is competent to pass the order. The learned single Judge held that it is the respondent No.4 that is Chairman cum Managing Director of BCCL is the disciplinary authority and he alone is competent to impose a penalty and not the respondent No.2, the Chairman cum Managing Director of CIL who is the appellate authority in this matter. Aggrieved against this order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25th August, 2000 the present appeal has been filed by BCCL.