BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED Vs. RAMESH PRASAD SRIVASTAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the employer, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent Ramesh Prasad Srivastav was allowed and the punishment awarded to him as a result of the departmental proceedings against him was set aside. By the impugned order, the learned Judge set aside the orders dated 7.7.1991 and 18.6.1992 and directed the appellant to forthwith place the case of the petitioner with appropriate Selection Committee within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of the order upon the respondent employer. In short, the writ petitioner-respondent was held to be wholly exonerated on the facts and was ordered to be reinstated to his earlier position.

(2.) By way of facts we may state that the original writ petitioner was working with the appellant herein and while so working was served with a charge- sheet dated 17.2.1987. In the chargesheet, three charges were levelled against the writ petitioner. They being (a) that he failed to maintain absolute integrity, (b) that he had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests or image of the company and (c) fraud and dishonesty in providing employment to a non-entitled person. Amongst the allegations it was stated that while the delinquent officer was posted in the position of Senior Personnel Officer, he received an Office Order No. GM-Pers/MP/Bhowra/XI/84/4521-26 dated 10/11 May, 1984 signed by the Personnel Manager, Bhowra Area purporting to be a transfer order in respect of one Monoj Kumar Sinha, mechanical fitter/helper, who was not actually an employee with the appellant, from Bararee Fire Project to Bhowra North Project. It was pointed out that this Monoj Kumar Sinha was not an employee at all and the delinquent officer had marked the office order to one Narsingh Sharma, Head Time-Keeper Bararee Colliery which was duly diarised in Bararee Colliery Register. It was then pointed out that this order was not acted upon and no release order was issued for four months. However, in the month of September, 1984 another unattested copy of the said transfer order was put up before the delinquent officer and on the basis of that unattested copy, the delinquent officer ordered to type the release order. Accordingly the release order was prepared on 8.9.1984 and that release order was countersigned by the delinquent officer. It was then alleged that the release order was given in the hands of Monoj Kumar Sinha in order to get it counter signed by the Project Officer, Bararee Fire Project. Some forgeries were made in that release order and on the strength of such release order Monoj Kumar Sinha, who was never an employee of the appellant-company, reportedly got the posting at the transferred place. It was further alleged that all these amounted to misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer. A full-fledged inquiry went on and as a result of that inquiry ultimately a punishment of censure was passed against the delinquent officer.

(3.) As a result of pendency of the inquiry, the original writ petitioner was not promoted to the next post and his case could not be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and in that he lost about two years time. However, ultimately, in keeping with the rules, the delinquent officer was promoted but with effect from 1989. A sealed cover procedure was adopted in his case and it was clearly pointed out to him, in his promotion order, that his promotion order would be subject to the result of the pending inquiry. Promotion was given to him perhaps because the departmental inquiry was not proceeding and a view was taken probably that he should not suffer on account of pendency of the departmental inquiry. He was given the promotion two years after his immediate junior was promoted, that is, from 1989. Ultimately, with the verdict of guilt and the consequent punishment of censure, the said promotion granted to him in 1989 was also withdrawn, but a fresh promotion was given to him with effect from 1992, The petitioner firstly challenged the punishment order of censure as also the subsequent order by which his promotion granted in 1989 was withdrawn and he was granted a fresh promotion in the year 1992.