ASOKE KUMAR CHAUDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As suggested and agreed by the learned lawyers of both sides the mailer has been taken up for final disposal expeditiously. This Case has a chequered background indeed. The writ Petitioner, who happens to be a first class Colliery Manager and has been working in the Coal Mining Industry in various capacities including the capacity of Manager and Agent for the last 32 years, challenges the order of suspension dated October 22, 1992, while an accident occurred in Madhusudanpur Colliery causing fatal injury to Tej Narayan Rajbhar, stowing mazdoor, in panel JT -16 in Jambad Top Sec. of Madhusudanpur Colliery on September 17, 1992, at around 1 p.m. due to collapse of the parting between Jambad Top Sec. and Jambad Bottom Section. The order of suspension was, however, stayed in an earlier writ petition permitting the Respondents authority to hold the departmental proceedings and to transfer the Petitioner to any other place. The present writ petition has been filed, however, challenging the charge -sheets dated October 28, 1992/November 4, 1992, issued by the Respondent No. 5, the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd., in order to proceed against the Petitioner on the basis of the relevant Clauses 5.0(5), 5.0(9) and 5.0(22) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of the Company. The Petitioner has grayed for a writ of mandamus to command the Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and each one of' them to appoint the Respondent No. 10, Central Mining Research Station, a Government of India Undertaking, to investigate in the causes and circumstances leading to the said accident occurred on September 17, 1992 of Madhusudanpur Colliery in the district of Burdwan and to submit a report of such investigation before the Court.

(2.) The writ petition was entertained on November 23, 1992. An interim order was made by the Hon'ble Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee J. that the Respondent authorities should not be permitted to proceed further pending finalisation of the report by the Commission of Enquiry. The matter went on appeal and the enquiry was allowed to proceed. By order dated June 30, 1993, this Court having heard the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner and for the E.C.L. authorities that the enquiry is proceeding in terms of the Appeal Court's order and there is every apprehension that the order of dismissal will follow and the leave is sought for to restrain the Respondent to live effect to the order of dismissal, if any, so as to enable the Court to consider the validity of the order of dismissal. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent authorities that in terms of the Appeal Court the enquiry proceeding has to be completed within a period of four months and a final order has to be made. If there is any order of dismissal it will have a separate and new cause of action and the Petitioner cannot ask for any further interlocutory order. Considering all the aspects an interim order is made to the extent that it is open to complete the enquiry and to pass any final order in terms of the order of the Appeal Court. The final order may be communicated to the Petitioner but the Respondents will not give effect to the same for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the said order. The said order was, however, challenged by the Respondents before the Division Bench. Leave was granted to the writ Petitioner to file an amended writ petition and an interim order was allowed to continue for a limited period. Pursuant to the leave granted by to Division Bench, an application for amended writ petition was filed on February 2, 1993. By order dated September 6, 1993, an application for amendment was -allowed and the matter was specially fixed on September 29, 1993. The matter was finally heard on September 30, 1993. In the amended application the Petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to set aside, cancel, rescind and/or quashed the impugned order of dismissal under No. CIL/C -5A(ii)/N -827/563 dated July 21, 1993.

(3.) The Respondents have also filed affidavit controverting the allegations and there is a reply by the Petitioner reiterating the points raised in the main writ petition and also in the amended writ petition.