Smt. Bhatni Devi and anr. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1137055
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnApr-03-2014
JudgeARINDAM SINHA
AppellantSmt. Bhatni Devi and anr.
RespondentCoal India Ltd. and ors.
Excerpt:
order sheet wp no.576 of 2010 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side smt. bhatni devi & anr. versus coal india ltd.& ors.before: the hon'ble justice arindam sinha date : 3rd april, 2014. appearance: mr.subrata ganguly, adv.mr.r.n. mazumder, adv.mr.partha basu, adv.mr.nikhil kr. roy, adv.the court : mr.ganguly, learned advocate, appears petitioners and mr.majumder, learned advocate, appears on behalf of the on behalf of the respondents. the writ petitioner since deceased and substituted by his widow and son had faced disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by framing of charge, inter alia, that he had arranged his employment by declaring himself as the son of shanti devi who was the wife of sarju bhuinya by posing himself as ramratan bhuinya on the allegation that the said shanti devi and sarju bhuinya were both employees of ecl and had no issue at all. the enquiry culminated in a report pursuant to which the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. the deceased writ petitioner had made his firs.writ petition being wp no.406 of 1999 to this court challenging the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the dismissal order. by the order dated 13th july, 2004, the said writ petition was disposed of by authority to proceed with this court with a direction upon the appellate the hearing of the appeal against the order of dismissal. the appeal was not heard and the writ petitioner once again made another writ petition being wp no.1617 of 2005 in this court. the said second writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 1st september, 2009. by that judgment this court held and directed, inter alia : “this court by its detailed order dated 13.7.2004 had framed issues desiring the appellate authority to decide the same. could not be disposed of. 13.7.2004 the appeal accordance with law. of unfortunately the appeal this court cannot overlook that by order dated the petitioner was directed to be considered in since the appeal was not decided, the petitioner’s right of appeal was rendered nugatory. for ends of justice, this court considers it necessary to direct the respondent no.4, being the director (personnel).ecl to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal dated 16.9.2004, at pg.s 64-69 of the petition, on merits and in the light of the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the high court of jharkhand. it is ordered accordingly. the petitioner shall be granted opportunity of personal hearing when he shall be at liberty to place before the appellate authority the said order dated 5.2.2001 as well as any other document he wishes to rely on. after hearing him, the appellate authority shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to him.” the appellate authority thereafter heard the appeal and made its order dated 30th march, 2010 which has been challenged by way of this, the third writ petition filed by the deceased writ petitioner and carried on by the substituted writ petitioner. mr.ganguly on behalf of the substituted petitioners submits that the appellate authority did not comply with the directions given, neither by the order dated 13th july, 2004 nor by the order dated 1st september, 2009 and as such, the order should be set aside with consequential benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner/employee. mr.majumder submits that he would cite authorities on the next date that if there is impropriety in the matter of procedure followed by the appellate authority, the only remedy is remand, as opposed to the order being set aside as prayed for by the petitioner. the matter is part heard and shall appear on april 10, 2014. (arindam sinha, j.) cs
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET WP No.576 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT.

BHATNI DEVI & ANR.

Versus COAL INDIA LTD.& ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 3rd April, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Subrata Ganguly, Adv.Mr.R.N.

Mazumder, Adv.Mr.Partha Basu, Adv.Mr.Nikhil Kr.

Roy, Adv.The Court : Mr.Ganguly, learned Advocate, appears petitioners and Mr.Majumder, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of the on behalf of the respondents.

The writ petitioner since deceased and substituted by his widow and son had faced disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by framing of charge, inter alia, that he had arranged his employment by declaring himself as the son of Shanti Devi who was the wife of Sarju Bhuinya by posing himself as Ramratan Bhuinya on the allegation that the said Shanti Devi and Sarju Bhuinya were both employees of ECL and had no issue at all.

The enquiry culminated in a report pursuant to which the Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from service.

The deceased writ petitioner had made his fiRs.writ petition being WP No.406 of 1999 to this Court challenging the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the dismissal order.

By the order dated 13th July, 2004, the said writ petition was disposed of by Authority to proceed with this Court with a direction upon the Appellate the hearing of the appeal against the order of dismissal.

The appeal was not heard and the writ petitioner once again made another writ petition being WP No.1617 of 2005 in this Court.

The said second writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 1st September, 2009.

By that judgment this Court held and directed, inter alia : “This Court by its detailed order dated 13.7.2004 had framed issues desiring the appellate authority to decide the same.

could not be disposed of.

13.7.2004 the appeal accordance with law.

of Unfortunately the appeal This Court cannot overlook that by order dated the petitioner was directed to be considered in Since the appeal was not decided, the petitioner’s right of appeal was rendered nugatory.

For ends of justice, this Court considers it necessary to direct the respondent no.4, being the Director (Personnel).ECL to consider and decide the petitioner’s appeal dated 16.9.2004, at pg.s 64-69 of the petition, on merits and in the light of the order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand.

It is ordered accordingly.

The petitioner shall be granted opportunity of personal hearing when he shall be at liberty to place before the Appellate Authority the said order dated 5.2.2001 as well as any other document he wishes to rely on.

After hearing him, the appellate authority shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to him.” The Appellate Authority thereafter heard the appeal and made its order dated 30th March, 2010 which has been challenged by way of this, the third writ petition filed by the deceased writ petitioner and carried on by the substituted writ petitioner.

Mr.Ganguly on behalf of the substituted petitioners submits that the Appellate Authority did not comply with the directions given, neither by the order dated 13th July, 2004 nor by the order dated 1st September, 2009 and as such, the order should be set aside with consequential benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased writ petitioner/employee.

Mr.Majumder submits that he would cite authorities on the next date that if there is impropriety in the matter of procedure followed by the Appellate Authority, the only remedy is remand, as opposed to the order being set aside as prayed for by the petitioner.

The matter is part heard and shall appear on April 10, 2014.

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) cs