LAWS(JHAR)-2011-11-9

AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

Decided On November 16, 2011
AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Appellant
V/S
COAL INDIA LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been punished for the misconduct, vide order dated 12th March, 2004 (annexure 3 to the memo of the petition) and against this order, an appeal was preferred, which has also been dismissed by order dated 29th October, 2005 and 2nd November, 2005 (Annexure 5 to the memo of the petition). These orders are under challenge mainly on the ground that charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved and further on the ground that more than one punishment have been awarded by the respondents and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is a dual punishment.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the respondents submitted that though the petitioner is holding a responsible post, i.e. that of Medical Superintendent, he, without traveling, has claimed Leave Travel Concession allowance and for that purpose he has given fake ticket numbers and therefore, he was given chargesheet and ultimately, the petitioner has admitted the charges and he has been awarded a minor punishment of withholding next promotion for a period of two years from the date it becomes due, i.e. the date on which his immediate junior in the seniority list is promoted. Further, the amount of Rs.35,240/ -, which has been claimed fraudulently by the petitioner, has been ordered to be recovered with interest from his salary and therefore, it can not be said that there are two punishments. Most lenient view has been taken by the counsel for the respondents and that similar type of gross irregularity has been committed by the very same petitioner earlier also, as stated in the chargesheet i.e. In Paragraph No. 2 of the Statement of Imputation of misconduct against the petitioner. Thus, it appears that repeatedly the petitioner is committing similar type of misconduct. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been considered and has been rejected vide order at annexure 5 to the memo of the petition and therefore, this court may not interfere with the action taken by the respondents by way of disciplinary action.

(3.) I , therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority or the order passed by the appellate authority, which are at annexure 3 and annexure 5 respectively to the memo of the petition. No error has been committed by the respondents in awarding punishment to the petitioner in order at Annexure 3 and order of confirmation at annexure 5 to the memo of the petition.