DURGAPADA ROY Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in this proceeding challenges, in substance, legality of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on 31 March 2008 by issuing memorandum of charges. THE petitioner also seeks release of his retiral benefits including leave encashment, gratuity and other dues which under normal circumstances he would have been entitled to on superannuation. Such benefits appear to have been withheld because of pendency of the said proceeding. 31 March 2008 was the date on which the petitioner was to retire from his service in Coal India Limited (CIL). At that point of time he was working as the Chief General Manager (Personnel) of the said company. It has been pleaded in the petition that at about 12.35 p.m. on that date the petitioner was served with a memorandum bearing reference no. CIL/VIG/05245/VD-69(CVC)/1934. This memorandum was in the nature of a charge sheet and he was directed to submit within ten days from the receipt of the memorandum the written statement of his defence.

(2.) The memorandum contains seven articles of charge. Allegations against the writ petitioner is that he, in collusion with certain other officers of the CIL, had arranged certain work order to be issued in favour of a firm, M/s. Institute of Educational and Psychological Management, Calcutta, for undertaking the job of conducting written examination and allied matters pertaining to selection of departmental candidates from non-executive to executive cadre in different disciplines within the organisation. THE first four articles of charges relate to allegations of manipulation in selection process and award of the contract to the said firm. Articles V and VI of the memorandum of charges relate to allegations of showing favour to them in terms of release of payment subsequent to their engagement. Article VII contains complain of corrupt practices undertaken by the said firm in the matter of setting of question papers in conducting the examination and favouring certain examinees with approval of the petitioner. For the purpose of the present proceeding, Articles V and VI of the memorandum of charges are of relevance. THEse articles provide:-

(3.) Before me, arguments have been advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel and he has emphasised that in the case of the writ petitioner, disciplinary proceeding could not continue as there was no charge against him of causing any pecuniary loss to the employer. He has relied on two authorities in support of this submission. The first one is a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors., 2007 1 SCC 663. The other authority is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Kr. Majumder Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2008 1 CalHN 951.