Coal India Ltd. & Anr vs Mukul Kumar Choudhari & Ors

5. On May 31, 1999, the Respondent No. 1 sent letter of resignation. His resignation was, however, not accepted by 2 the Management and, accordingly, he joined his duty on September 10, 1999.

6. In the enquiry proceedings, the Respondent No. 1 appeared before the Inquiry Officer and admitted the charges leveled against him. The Inquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and vide his report dated October 5, 1999 held that the delinquent was guilty of the charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet.

7. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice dated December 10, 1999 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 indicating therein that in view of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, termination of his services was proposed. The delinquent was asked to show cause as to why the punishment of termination of service be not awarded to him. A copy of the enquiry report was sent along with the second show cause notice.

9. By an Office Order dated November 29, 2000, the Respondent No. 1 was removed from service with immediate effect. The Respondent No. 1 pursued the departmental remedy but without any success. He also approached Calcutta High Court on more than one occasion raising grievance of non-consideration of the departmental appeal and the review application before Reviewing Authority and the departmental authorities not passing the reasoned order. It is not necessary to refer to these proceedings in details. Suffice it to say that as directed by the High Court, he challenged the order of removal before the Board of Directors which came to be dismissed on August 17, 2006. Then, he again approached the High Court by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2006.

11. The order of the Single Judge was challenged in separate appeals by both parties before the Division Bench. The appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed while the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed and it was held that he was entitled to back wages for the period on and from the year 2000 until reinstatement.

13. Inter alia, the misconduct alleged against the Respondent No. 1 was unauthorized absence from duty for more than six months. The delinquent admitted the charges before the Inquiry Officer. He stated :

21. The Division Bench like the Single Bench fell into grave error in not adequately adverting to the fact that the charges were admitted by the delinquent unequivocally and unambiguously and, therefore, misconduct of the Respondent No. 1 was clearly established. We are, therefore, unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the view of the High Court. 11

23. CCSU has been reiterated by English courts in several subsequent cases. We do not think it necessary to refer to all those cases.

27. In Ranjit Thakur referred to earlier, an army officer did not obey the lawful command of his superior officer by not 18 eating food offered to him. Court-martial proceedings were initiated and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year was imposed. He was also dismissed from service, with added disqualification that he would be unfit for future employment.

27. Consequently, both these appeals are allowed in part. The appellants shall reinstate Respondent No. 1 forthwith but he will not be entitled to any back wages from the date of his removal until reinstatement. Parties will bear their own costs.

........................J (P. Sathasivam) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi August 24, 2009.