SRI NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 21st January, 1995, the appellant, who was working as a security guard/gun retainer at Parbelia Colliery in the district of Purulia within the Sodepur area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL), was allotted duty in the third shift, i.e., from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. at the cash office, Parbelia Colliery. Alleging that on the said date the appellant, being aware of the fact that a truck no. BHG-4243 (hereinafter referred to as the said truck) loaded with companies materials, which were lifted from Ranipur Colliery for Parbelia Colliery, had allowed the same to leave the premises of Parbelia Colliery at night hours during his duty period with no valid reason or permission of the competent authority, a charge sheet was issued on 23rd January, 1995 after lodging a similar complaint before the police authorities on 22nd January, 1995. An enquiry officer was appointed and the appellant participated in the enquiry. After the enquiry report was filed, the appellant replied to the same and thereafter by an order dated 31st May, 1995 the appellant was dismissed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a statutory appeal and as the same was kept pending, he preferred a writ petition being CO 14154 (W) of 1995 which was ultimately dismissed by an order dated 15th June, 2006. Challenging the said order the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the enquiry officer arrived at a finding that the concerned truck was allowed to leave the premises between 10.30 p.m. of 21st January, 1995 to 110 a.m. (midnight) of 22nd January, 1995. It would be explicit from the charge sheet that the appellant's duty period was from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. According to the enquiry officer the appellant connived with one "Sitaram Singh and contractor or others" but no such charge of connivance was levelled against the appellant in the charge sheet. Such contradictions have maligned the entire proceeding. In support of such contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006)5 SCC 88 and in the case of Moni Shankar v. Union of India and another, reported in (2008)3 SCC 484.

(3.) Drawing the attention of this Court to the order of punishment dated 31st May, 1995, he argues that the same had been passed by the Manager of Parbelia Colliery in consultation with and placing reliance upon an order passed by the General Manager. No such purported order of the General Manager was disclosed by the respondents. Such an order of punishment passed by two officers in consultation with each other is alien to service jurisprudence and is not sustainable in law.