SURESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL COAL FIELD LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the office orders dated 24.1.1999 issued by the General Manager, Dhori Area, Central Coalfield Ltd. by which the petitioners have been awarded punishment of demotion to the next lower post and pay scale and also for recovery of the financial loss caused to the respondents from their salary.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioners were working as clerks in Amlo Project under Dhori Area of the respondents. On 4.7.1994 the petitioners were assigned the work of pay clerks. On the same day in the night after duty hours theft was committed in the strong room and the money and other articles kept therein were taken away. A police case was instituted on the next day against unknown. In course of investigation the petitioners were made accused and they were put under suspension pending issue of formal charge -sheet and initiate on of departmental proceeding. Charge against the petitioners was that on 4.7.1994 after disbursement of the amount to the employees, the unpaid amount together with the list showing the names of the workers who were paid their wages, was not returned to the cashier. It was further alleged that the petitioners unauthorisedly got the cash back in the strong room without accounting and did not return the balance cash to the cashier of the Amlo Project. As the petitioners failed to perform their duties, the same amounted to misconduct in terms of various clauses of the Standing Orders. The petitioners submitted their explanation and denied the allegation levelled against them. The departmental proceeding commenced and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the Management failed to prove the charges levelled against the petitioners. The Enquiry Officer further held that the petitioners are not guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and show cause notices were issued to the petitioners intimating them the reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioners submitted their representation on 27.7.1998 to the Disciplinary Authority explaining the facts and circumstances of the case. The Disciplinary Authority issued office orders dated 24.1.1999 holding the petitioners responsible for the financial loss to the Company. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, imposed punishment of demotion to the next lower post and pay scale and ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.2,18,453.80 paise at the rate of Rs. 2000/ - per month from the salary of the each petitioners.

(3.) MR . Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners assailed the impugned orders of punishment as being illegal and wholly perverse. Learned counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer, after considering the entire facts, evidence and other materials, came to a definite finding that the petitioners are not guilty of the charges but the Disciplinary Authority reversed the said finding of the Enquiry Officer merely on extraneous considerations and imposed the punishment. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority arrived at a finding that it was Sri Onkar Singh, the cashier who deliberately kept both the keys of the strong room in the Almirah of his office which was kept unlocked and the punishment imposed against him by awarding dismissal from service is justified. In view of this finding no charge could have been framed against the petitioners.