CHANDESHWAR SINGH Vs. THE COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reserved On 17/9/2025 Pronounced On 12 /11/2025 21/ 17/9/2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Executive Trainee on 1/11/1991 and is currently serving as a Senior Manager (Material Management) at Darbhanga House, Ranchi. In 2018, while posted at Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), Hazaribag, a vigilance investigation was initiated in relation to 65 files for the period between January 2016 to August 2019. During this period, the petitioner was posted at Hazaribag area. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was held between 3/9/2019 to 9/9/2019 for promoting employees from E-6 to E-7 grade. The petitioner was found eligible for promotion. However, just one day before the promotion list was released, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25/9/2019, even though his name was reflected in the seniority list. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 16/10/2019, but the same was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after a proper inquiry, issued a memo on 19/1/2021, imposing penalty on the petitioner by reducing his pay by one stage for one year. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Respondent No. 2, but his appeal was rejected on 10/5/2021, and the penalty was upheld.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an internal inquiry was held against the petitioner and none of the charges against the petitioner were proved. He further contended that the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with this report and without giving any clear reasons imposed penalty reducing the petitioner's salary by one stage for one year which led to the petitioner being denied a well-deserved promotion. He also submitted that the punishment was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, citing various misconduct, but no evidence was presented to support the claim of misconduct. He further argued that no proper reasoning was provided by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority also failed to give explanation for rejecting the petitioner's defense while upholding.