NAND LAL ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause (1) of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th July, 1998 passed in CWJC No 2052/1993 (R), whereby the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the order dated 12.2.1993 passed by the Director of Ministry of Coal and dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner/appellant was in the service of the respondents at the relevant time and was working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Assansol. In 1978, a memorandum of charges was served upon him and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The charges inter alia was that the petitioner while in Assansol office from 1974 onwards aided and abetted identification of one person posing himself to be Shri Sripat Chamar and a wrong person one H.P. Rajak withdrew the provident fund of Sripat Chamar with the help of the petitioner. In the disciplinary proceeding, the Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund was appointed as Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry. After conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges and the inquiry report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and after giving him a show -cause for the purpose of punishment and reasonable opportunity of hearing a final order was passed imposing punishment to the petitioner by reducing him to the rank of Lower Division Clerk.

(3.) MR . P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground inter alia that the learned single Judge has not correctly appreciated the point raised by the petitioner. Mr. Sinha, firstly submitted that the appointment of Director, Ministry of Coal as disciplinary authority is in contravention of Regulation 32 (3) of Regulation of 1964. According to the learned counsel the disciplinary authority has considered a document i.e. statement of 'Rajak,' which was not ever supplied to the petitioner and thereby order of punishment is violative of principles of natural justice.