VINAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of the Hindustan Copper Limited, a Government of India enterprise (hereafter the company). He is the Chief Manager (Marketing) and posted at Malanjkhand Copper Project, Malanjkhand, District Balaghat in the State of Madhya Pradesh. By an order dated November 3, 2011, the Director (Mining) of the company, being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner placed him under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The order entitled the petitioner to draw subsistence allowance as per Rules 21.1 and 21.2 of the Hindustan Copper Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereafter the CDA Rules). The last paragraph of the order reads as follows:

(2.) By a further order dated May 25, 2012, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner issued charge-sheet in connection with disciplinary proceedings (major penalty) that he had contemplated and proposed to conduct (referred to in the order of suspension) under Rule 25 of the CDA Rules.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been participating in the disciplinary proceedings, but he has not been paid subsistence allowance since the day he was placed under suspension. However, owing to the petitioner's failure to mark attendance daily as was directed by letters dated November 28, 2011 and February 9, 2011 issued by the MCP Unit Head, i.e. DGM/MCP, the disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against him once again by issuance of a charge-sheet dated May 8, 2013. Such charge-sheet was forwarded to the petitioner by the Chief Manager (HR & A) of the company by his forwarding letter dated May 17, 2013.