IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5865 of 2001 Between: Y.Srimannarayana … Petitioner And M/s. Cement Corporation of India and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5865 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in passing the impugned proceedings order No.CCI/VIG/CO/605/94, dated 24.05.1999 and order No.CCC/VIG/CO.605/94.334, dated 15.01.1999 respectively, as null and void. By impugned proceedings dated 15.01.1999, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of reduction of his pay by two stages from Rs.13,875/- to Rs.13,125/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.12,000-375- 16, 500 for a period of three years with immediate effect and will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay and the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority by proceedings dated 24.05.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Industrial Engineer and subsequently promoted as Senior Industrial Engineer, Dy.Manager (M.S.) and finally promoted as Manager (Management Services). While working as Manager (M.S.), the respondents Corporation issued a statement of articles of charge, framed against the petitioner as under: “ARTICLE – I Shri Y.Sreemanarayana, Manager (MS) while working at CCI, Kurkunta during the period 1991-92, as a member of a Committee recommended to fix the ash content of coal transported by M/s. Maheshwari Industrial Products, Vijayawada in terms of Work Order dated 27.9.91, at a maximum of 34% instead of 26.4% in violation of Clause 8(1) of the Work Order read with M/s. SECL’s letter dated 17.9.91 collected by Shri Sreemanarayana himself from the collieries and thereby showed undue favour to M/s Maheshwari Industrial Products. By his above act, Sh. Y.Sreemanarayana exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an Executive of the Corporation, thereby violating Rule 7 read with Rule 27(x) and (xiv) of the CCI’s Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. ARTICLE – II Shri Y.Sreemanarayana, Mgr. (MS) while working at CCI, Kurkunta during the period 1991-92, as a Member of the Committee, unduly recommended to condone, vide minutes of the meeting held on 13.12.91, the second transshipment enroute to M/s Maheshwari Industrial Products, vijayawada in transporting CCI’s coal from the collieries of M/s SECL to CCI, Kurkunta, in violation of Clause-9 of the Work Order dated 27.9.91, as favour to the party. Sh. Y.Sreemanarayana by his above act exhibited lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of an Executive of the Corporation, thereby violating Rule-7 read with Rule 27(x) and (xiv) of the CCI’s Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.” In response to the said articles of charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation, explaining the facts and circumstances and sought for closure of disciplinary action. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 09.05.1997 and held that the charge No.1 is partly proved and the charge No.2 is not proved. Based on the above, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 13.05.1998 as to why the punishment shall not be imposed, for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.05.1998 stating that the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding that in respect of the charge No.1 leveled against him partly proved, which is not correct as the relevant material to the effect that the petitioner is not at all responsible for the said charge, has not been properly considered. Therefore, he requested to consider all the facts and evidence in true perspective and he may be exonerated completely from the charges leveled against him. Having not satisfied with the same, the original authority issued impugned order dated 15.01.1999 holding that the Enquiry Officer felt that the charge No.1 is partly proved, therefore, the order dated 15.01.1999 was issued. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal wherein the order of the original authority was confirmed by order dated 24.05.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a review application on 11.11.1999 stating all the facts and also placed all the relevant material available with him, which is neither properly considered by the Enquiry Officer nor by the Original Authority and the same was also not looked into by the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there was no sufficient material available to impose the punishment against the petitioner but the appellate authority only felt that since the punishment imposed against the petitioner was not in disproportionate as the charge No.1 is partly proved against him and simply dismissed the appeal. He further contended that the appellate authority has not considered any of the material placed before him. Therefore, he filed a review application on 11.11.1999. Since neither the grounds raised by the petitioner nor the material place by him before the appellate authority were properly considered, he filed a review petition and thereafter, a reminder but the same are not seen the light of the day. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the respondent Corporation, who faced the disciplinary enquiry and found out of two one is partly proved. Based on the above, the original authority imposed the punishment as stated hereinabove aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the original authority. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of charge No.1 that the petitioner is responsible for favouring the contractor as against the work order is not at all correct as the petitioner is only one of the members of the Committee but he is not the final authority and there was no record available to show that the petitioner favoured the Contractor as against the work order. The petitioner did everything as per the decision taken by the Committee only. Therefore, the petitioner is no way concerned and further, the case of the petitioner was not at all properly considered either by the original authority or by the appellate authority. Furthermore, the other persons, who were also faced the disciplinary proceedings along with the petitioner were reinstated into the service. The said aspect was also not considered. Therefore, bringing all the facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed a review petition and also a reminder but the reviewing authority has not passed any orders, so far. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I am of the view that without going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. The 2nd respondent, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, before whom the review petition dated 11.11.1999 is pending, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner, taking into consideration the material placed before him by the petitioner in the review petition and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the orders in the review petition is not passed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 03.12.2010 LSK