1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3315/2007 Arvind Sheshrao Kathwate ..vs.. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Reviewing Authority, Western Coalfields Ltd. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. S. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 18 th DECEMBER, 2008 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges imposition of punishment on him. The punishment is reduction in the rank by two stages. The first grievance of the petitioner is that his review application is not decided by the competent Authority. That position has been clarified by learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal was decided by Director (Personnel) and his review application has been decided by Chairman-cum-Managing Director. It is, thus, obvious that it was done by the competent Authority. 2 3. The second submission is that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner does not amount to misconduct as per charge-sheet itself. Admitted position is that the petitioner addressed a letter using name of some other person making allegations of corruption against Officers of the Organization where the petitioner was serving. The person, whose name was used has stated that he did not write the complaint. The petitioner admitted that he used somebody else's name in the complaint. Making allegations against Officers or employees of the Company, in our opinion, is a misconduct and this misconduct has been admitted by the petitioner. 4. It is sought to be urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that Enquiry Report was not given to the petitioner. In our opinion, once misconduct is admitted, there is no need to hold any enquiry and, thus, there is no question of supplying any enquiry report to the petitioner. 3 5. Next it is contended that punishment of reduction in rank by two stages could not have been awarded in view of letter dated 09.03.1992. Perusal of the letter itself shows that the instructions in the latter are of advisory nature and are not binding on the Disciplinary Authority. It is to be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment. In our opinion, considering the misconduct of the petitioner, which was of extremely serious nature and wanton allegations were made by the petitioner against the Officers of the Organization, in our opinion, by no stretch of imagination the punishment can be termed as harsh. It was contended that the punishment of reduction in rank should be imposed for a specific period and it cannot be for an indefinite period. We do not see any substance in this submission also. In our opinion, once having admitted the guilt and considering the nature of misconduct of the petitioner, the employer has really been kind to the petitioner 4 by imposing lesser punishment. The petitioner should have accepted the punishment gracefully. 6. There is no substance in the petition. The same is, therefore, rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to pay, as and by way of cost, Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to the respondent. JUDGE JUDGE kahale