CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal has been filed by the Management, against the judgment dated 13.9.2004, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2109 of 1996 (R) by learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition in part by setting aside the punishment of dismissal and directing the Management -appellant to prescribe proper punishment other than dismissal.

(2.) THE facts, in short, are as follows. Respondent -writ petitioner -workman was served with a charge sheet dated 20 -21/1/1995, which reads as follows: To, Sri N.K. Giri, Foreman, D.G. Set, Bachra. You are hereby required to state as to why disciplinary action even amounting to dismissal from the service of the C.C. Ltd., should not be taken against you under the Certified Standing Order applicable to this mine by which you are covered on account of the following charges: On 8.1.95 (Sunday) at about 3.45 P.M. when 11 KV DVC Ray -Bachra Feeder Power was failured and due to this maintenance work of Mine No. 1 was stopped. Shri Biswajit Prasad, Tele Optr., Bachra was sent to you personally to ask you to give power from D.G. Set for maintenance work but you refused to give power with present Sanctioned Manpower. You also refused to give D.G. Power when the E.E. (E&M;), Bachra workshop personally approached and told to give D.G. Power you have flatly refused and told him that you will only start the Engine when two extra manpower of D.G. Plant is sanctioned by Project Officer, Bachra. Due to which the maintenance work of Mine No. 1 has been suffered badly and effected the Production. This is a serious misconduct on your post. If the above charges are proved they would constitutes acts subversive of discipline and also constitute misconduct under the Clause 17(1)(C), (f)(1) of the S.O. No. 17(i) of the aforesaid standing orders and even otherwise considering what is misconduct has to be reasonably construed. ....

(3.) AFTER holding domestic enquiry, the workman was dismissed nom service by the disciplinary authority by order dated 9.8.1995 (Annexure -12). This order was challenged by the workman by filing the writ petition in question. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman preferred appeal before the appellate authority against his dismissal. The appeal was dismissed. That order was also challenged in the writ petition.