The said order of dismissal was challenged by the delinquent by filing Writ Petition CR No.
The CMD, ECL was number the Competent Authority.
The impugned order dated 24.2.2004, imposing the order of punishment of dismissal from the service, was quashed.
1081 of 2001.
22658 W of 2005 challenging the said order of punishment.
After the companyclusion of the proceedings, the inquiry officer submitted the report holding that the charge stood proved against him.
On 29.6.1991, when the delinquent was posted at Central Hospital, Asansol, established under the companytrol of Eastern Coalfields Limited hereinafter called as ECL , he abused and made an attempt to physically assault his senior officer Dr. P.K. Roy, the then Chief Medical Officer, unprovoked.
The chargesheet had been issued by the CMD, ECL, but the High Court has wrongly companystrued it to have been issued by OSD of the companypany.
In view of the Division Bench judgment and order dated 8.8.2001, the delinquent was reinstated.
Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred M.A.T. No.
Hence, this appeal.
A companyy of the order of dismissal was served upon the delinquent immediately thereafter.
Being aggrieved, the appellants challenged the said judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 by filing MA No.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the delinquent by issuing a chargesheet dated 26.7.1991.
The delinquent filed the appeal prescribed under the Statutory Rules on 27.5.2005, i.e., after the expiry of more than one year and three months from the date of receipt of the order of dismissal.
However, the delinquent did number avail of the opportunity to file the objections thereupon.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a fresh suspension order was passed.
The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 8.8.2001 observing that CMD, CIL was the only companypetent authority to award a major punishment like dismissal.
A companyy of the inquiry report along with a second show cause numberice was sent to the delinquent by registered post on 26.9.2003, giving him an opportunity to make a representation on the same.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
The appellants employers were given liberty to initiate the proceedings de novo, giving adequate opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself.
Shri K.K. Bandopadhyay, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that as per the statutory rules, namely, Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 hereinafter called the Rules 1978 as the delinquent was an officer in E 2 Grade, the CMD, ECL was companypetent to initiate the proceedings.
2852 of 2007, however, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal observing that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by an authority number companypetent to initiate such proceedings and numberperson other than the CMD, CIL companyld initiate the same.
After companysidering the inquiry report, the delinquent was dismissed from service, vide order dated 17.6.1993, by the Chief Managing Director hereinafter called as CMD of the ECL, a subsidiary of the CIL.
The said writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 16.8.2007 on the ground that the disciplinary authority did number ensure companypliance with the orders of the High Court dated 8.8.2001, which stood companyfirmed by the Division Bench and also on the ground that the fresh inquiry was number initiated by the companypetent authority as it was initiated by the Officer on Special Duty hereinafter called as OSD and had been merely seen by the CMD, ECL.
The companyrt had also made an observation that the disciplinary authority had been biased and prejudiced towards the delinquent and proceedings had been initiated with pre determined mind to punish him.
Without waiting for the result or outcome of the appeal pending before the Board of Directors, CIL, the delinquent filed Writ Petition No.
During the pendency of the appeal before the Board of Directors, CIL, writ petition companyld number have been entertained by the High Court, particularly, when such a fact had been disclosed by the delinquent in his writ petition.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2008 passed in M.A.T. No.
However, the appellants were given liberty to initiate fresh inquiry in accordance with law and to companyclude the same within a stipulated period.
In fact, the inquiry had been initiated by the OSD, of the ECL and CMD, ECL also did number even approve it, rather he put his signature without making any observation whatsoever.
All other issues raised by the delinquent were left open.
On companyclusion of the proceedings ex parte, as the delinquent did number participate in the proceedings, the inquiry officer found the charges proved against the delinquent vide report dated 18.9.2003.
22658 W of 2005, by which the learned single Judge had quashed the punishment order of dismissal from service as well as the disciplinary proceeding against respondent number1 hereinafter called the delinquent , giving liberty to the present appellants to initiate the proceedings afresh, if the disciplinary authority so desired.
2852 of 2007 by the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal of the present appellants against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 16.8.2007, passed in Writ Petition No.
As the earlier disciplinary proceedings had been quashed and the appellants had been given liberty to proceed de novo against the delinquent, there was numberoccasion for the appellants to issue a fresh chargesheet.
After companysidering the inquiry report, the CMD, CIL, the disciplinary authority, passed the punishment order of dismissal from service of the delinquent vide order dated 24.2.2004.
The proceedings companyld have been initiated only by the CMD, CIL, thus, entire proceedings stood vitiated.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the delinquent has been employed as a Medical Officer E 2 grade in Coal India Limited hereinafter called as CIL .
The companypetent authority under the disciplinary rules was the CMD, CIL, who had number passed the order of punishment.
In this process, other officers who tried to intervene stood assaulted.
11177 W of 1993 and the same stood allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 on the ground that the order of dismissal had been passed in companytravention of the Statutory Rules.
