S.N.TRIPATHI Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.12.1994 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Chairman -cum -Managing Director, BCCL) by which the petitioner has been demoted to next lower grade for a period of two years in a departmental proceeding and further for quashing the appellate order dated 18.1.1996 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Chairman, Coal India Ltd.) by which the punishment given by the disciplinary authority has been reduced to the extent of demotion to the next lower grade for a period of one year.

(3.) MR . V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned orders of punishment as being illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel submitted that when the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer he has first to record reasons of such disagreement and ought to have served it upon the petitioner for filing their show -cause/representation. It was only thereafter that the disciplinary authority should have passed order of punishment after recording a conclusive finding to the effect that on the basis of evidence charges have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority has not adopted this procedure and therefore, the order of punishment can not be sustained in law. Learned counsel in this regard relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (1999) 7 SCC 84 which principles was followed in subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 739.