BINDESHWARI PRASAD Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 18.01.2002 whereby a penalty of downgrading the petitioner from E-II grade to E-I grade has been imposed and it has further been ordered to treat the intervening period as leave without pay and without any consequential benefits including two time bound promotion due to him. Petitioner was transferred from Malanjkhand Copper Project to Khetri Copper Complex on 10.06.1993 and he joined his duties on 30.06.1993. On 20.12.1996, he was served a memorandum along with the statement of article of charge, statement of imputation of misconduct and list of documents. The specific allegation levelled against him was that even though he joined his duties at Khetri Copper Complex on 30.06.1993, he failed to vacate Quarter No. B1/111 and therefore, he contravened Rule 1-4(c) and committed misconduct under Rule 5-1(e), (f) and (t) of Hindustan Copper Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. On conclusion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 31.10.1998 of removal of the petitioner from the service of the Company. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 11.01.1999. The petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2862 of 1999(R) which was disposed of on 04.09.2001. The Hon'ble Court has directed as under,

(2.) As the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of within a reasonable time, the petitioner had to move the High Court again by filing Cont. Case (C) No. 945 of 2001. However, finally order dated 18.01.2002 was served upon the petitioner whereby order dated 31.10.1998 of removal from service was set aside and the penalty of downgrading from E-II grade to E-I grade, as noticed above, was passed against the petitioner. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(3.) Counter-Affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed in which it has been stated that the petitioner, inspite of repeated requests and directions, did not vacate the official accommodation at Malanjkhand Copper Project and therefore, the Company had to institute a case under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Even after the order passed in the eviction proceeding the petitioner did not vacate the premises and therefore, police help was sought by the Company for removing the petitioner from the premises. Again, the petitioner has been suspended for not vacating Bungalow No. 4E, which he had taken for three days on account of marriage of his daughter. As he did not vacate the said house inspite of letters dated 16.05.2005 and 04.06.2005 written to him requesting him to vacate the premises, the petitioner was again suspended on 11.06.2005 and a departmental proceeding was again initiated against the petitioner.