, .J. CF< -20 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARTH, AT BILASPUR. WRIT APPEAL N0.. .-".::./..... .2007 3>^ APPELLANT/ ^^ririo^W <»» ^l^•^ \o-v' ^•yy' ^' RESPONDENTS: ^ ^Jvo ^ '^ t^ <yy ^v ^^^•"^•s^.. ^ <tf^ 5'^. %.. ^- ^ Wf-/ 'J'i^w^^ ^^^.^^ / S.R.Chavan, S/o LateR.S.Chavan, Aged about 57 yerars, Ex.Dy Manager, (Mktg) Cement Corporation oflnidia Ltd., Akaltara, DistJanjgir, CG State. Versus l)Cement Corpn. Oflndia Through Chairman & Managing Director Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. / 2) Executive Director, Cement Corpn oflndia, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. / 3) General Manager, Akaltara Cement Factory, CCI, Dist. Janjgir, CG State. ,, 4) Shri P.C. Shrivastava, Rtd. DIG Enquiry Officer, FlatNo.1269, Sector-A, Pocket-8, VasantKunj, NewDelhillOOSO. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2C1) HIGH COURT RULES OF C.G.CAPPEAL TO D.B.)ACT.20Q6. HIGH CXXJRT OP CHHA'FTISGARH : BILASPUR W.A. No. 307 of 2007 Appellaiit S, R, Ghavaii Versus Respondeats Ceiiient<>)rpoi^LtiD3iofIndia&oftiers WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (APPEALTO DIVISION BENCHlACT*. 20(» DB: Hon'ble Mr. I. M. Quddusi, & Hon^ble Mr. Praishsait Ramar Mishxa, JJ, Shri K, R. Nair, Advocate for tfae appellaat Shri P. 8, Koshy, Advocate with Shari N. Nalia Roy, Advoc^e fbr fhje rcspondents. ORDBRtorall ( Passcd on this 6th dsy ofAugust, 2010) PCT I. M. Ouddmd. J. Heard learaed couosel appeartog fiw fhe wxit appeflaait as well as leanied couiisel for the rcspondeate, The appellant has fiiled fhis writ appeala^test the impu|?aed onler dated 5.12.2006, passed by fhe leaxiied SiQ^e J^idge m Writ Petition No. 651 of 1996 ( S. R. Chavan Vs. Executive Disector, Cement Corporation oflndia Limited aad otfaers) Brief facts of fhe case ace fhat ia ffae yeor IQ70 the appellaiit was appointed as Executive Trainee. He was coxtfirmed o& the post of Geologist m the year 1980 aad ia the year 1983 he was posted as Senior Geologist Oa 5.3.1993 when fhe appeUmit waa pc^ted as Depuly Manager (Marketin^ at Akaltara Ceiaent Peictory, a report was lodged by Smt RaDJix Siotgh, wife ofa Q^raduate Sales Ti^iBee (Shri Vijay Kumar Smg^i) that in fhe night of4.3.1993 ^ie appeBant tried to outr^e her modesty, On that basia a criixriaal case was rc^isteiied, wherein vide jiidgment dated 21<8.1^5 pa^s^d by tfae Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Jaiijgir> fhe apl^Uaat was ^... 'y ^-^-—^^ acqaitted of the char^es xmder Secttoa 456 aod 354 <xf titoe IiiiAtoEi PenalCode. Oa 5.3<1993 tfae appeUaiat was placed lamter siis^iisiMi^ by the oider passed by fhe Executive Director aftfae Cement Corpofatioaa of India Limited. Duriaig suspexisioa period tihe head qia^rter of tfae petitioner was j&ced as CCI, Regioaal oflteer at Maxte-as (Chenna^- Beiag a^prieved fhe petitioner filed M. P. No. 1855/1993 wlsaofa waa diamissed by oider dated 22.6. 1993. A cfaai^e shast was isaiied oa 22.7.1993 to which the appellant submitted his repty on 27.7.1993, On 18.10.1993 a aiotice was issiaed to fhe appellaat to atteiid (be preliminary hearfaig oa 5.11.1993 at Atealtara. On seversd dates^ fixed by fhe enquiiy aufhority, the apprilacit did laot sifeteaad &e prelimiaaiy as weU as regular hearfag on one or ofher paetexfc However, on 15.4,1994 fhe appeflant submitted hia wxitteB submisaion to fhe enquiiy aufhority admittiiig all fhe cfa^rges jGnamed agaiast him. In response to fhe eommuiiicatioa dated 8,6,1994 ia reganl to enquixy report, the appeIteD.t filed Iiis reprcsentation on 20.6.1994, By order dated 9.8.1994 fhe appellaiit waa ciismisRsed fipMa sanvia&< Tfae departaieiatal appeal, preferred by the appellaat, <ribaIIeEi®hag fhe order dated 9.8.1994, was dismissed on 20.101994. TfaCTeafter, the Writ Petition No. 651/19@6 filed by the appeltaaat was also dismissed by fhe impugaed oider dated 5^ Dec^oiber, r2006y passed-by learoed Siagte Judge, heiice fhe jtestaiaATOrit appeai Leanied couiisel appearing for fhe appellaat hass p^ssed oxily 02^ point fhat fbe Executh^ Director (Mailcetirig^ mos iiot flie appoiatuig autfaorily of the petitioxier. It was oiity fhe Direetor (Ptersomie^. Tfae CkMporatioaa is aa UHderteddxig of Uxuoa odf Iiadia^ %e R^tes approved by fhe Boaid of Directors namely CSemeait Coxpoiatioii of Iiidia Umited Conduct, Discqrfme aiad Appeal Rules a(q^ m tte case of fhe petitioner. In Rule 22 it has beexi ptovided ftiat <CNo employee shall, except wifh the preivioixs saactitoa of the Corporation tove recourse to aay court or to tfae p^^s for ^hie viiidicatkm of aaay ojGBcial wfaidh has beea tlie sistoject matter oS adverse criticism or aa attack of defamatcay cliaxaoter^ In fhe Scheduled at serial No.6 "Natere of powea^, fhe autfaorily has beeii ••%- '• ^ ^ % i -y 8. gsveai pewa- for taidjag di^pliEiaiy actioai inchjKiixig disaaiissal, remoival, tennmation, reductioa to a lower grade or post, or a srtage m a tiime scale, suspeiision ete. mcludiiig suspemsioii peiadiog enquiry, The {wswers have beea delegated subject to foHowixig the Conduct Discipllae aad Appeals, Rules, ia respect of all ofiScers/employees workiag on poste for wliicli he is the apixriiitmg aufhority. Learaed counsel for fhe respomlents SIiri P. S. Koshy has diawii attention of fhibs Court towanls fhe office oxder dated 11th November, 1993 (Aanexure A/14) which speaks as imder 2 <The schedule of sub-delegatioii ofpowers of Dtector (Mktg) to be exercised by Executive Director (Mkl^ is enclosed. This issues witli fhe ap^Dewal of C^mfpetemt ^rtiMirity*1' 9, In view of ihe fect fhat it tisus been writt^ii tfaerem tih^at tfae saiiie has beea issued with fhe sippnwal of tfae CompeteBt Aufhority aiid fhe competent aufhority is the Boaand of D&ectora, ThCT<rfbie^ tfae rule mafcing aufhority has delegated fhe PQWCTQ to ilie appcrimtfe^ authority i.e. fhe ExTOUtwe Director (Marketixi^. Thiis, it caauaot be said fhat fhe Executive Director (Marketin^ was aot tiie a^poiiitiaig aufhority ofthe petitioner. 10. The provisioaas of Article 311 of the Constittittoa of Iiidia do MOt apply ia the case of fhe employees aiid officers of (tee Corpoa^tioa, may be axi iiiadertakiag offhe State or Uiiion, la fhe i»rcseiitcase^ provisioiis of the Coxiduct, Dwcrfplme & Appeal Ririe» wm^d be appMcable and aocoxdmg to Rule 28 "DiscipMaaty Autfaoritites", tfae appomting autiiortty/dKcipIiiiaxy auth<»ity as spedtfied ia the - Schedule appeaided fhereto or aay ofher aufhorily hi^»rQiaoi it may mi^ose axiy of tihe penaltifis speeijB^d Jii Rute ^ as weB as m the note, it has been meiiticmed fhat fhe disciplioary aiithK>rity wiU detenxmie wifh refereiice to tihe post aotualty Iield by aa. emplcyee at the tibGae of imposiag peaalty on him. Thereforcy at ftoie tmie of penalty, as per delegation of powers it was fhe Bxecutive Dm^star (Marketm^, However, Shri Koshy coudd not prodiK^ IIxe iela?asit records ie. fhe iniautes of fhe Boaid af Dir tors. This€3oiartcoiild "^j'\ ^•-•M ^ ~~^:>^ \^ not get an opportuiiity to look into tfae same but at tfae saiiie time ttie office order dated 18th November, 1993 cannotbe dasputed. 11. In view of ffae above, we are not incliaed to tetalbre with tihie impugned order dated 5.12.20C^, passed by fhe leamed Siagte Judge. 12. However, it wiU be opea to fhe petltioaer to m<we a j&esh repx^seatetion. As we have ao occasion to see fhe recotd, oa submission of fhe representation it would be plcasiire of the conceraed aufhorily to take a decision or forwpani ffae same to the Boaid ofDircctors for takmg a decisioa, ia accoxdacfcce wiffa tow. 13. The writ appeal is disposed ofaocoxdisa^y, No oxdter as to ccx^te. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakiur <