Partly allowed

Rakesh S/O Ramkishor Khurana v. Coal India Limited, through Its Chairman, Kolkata and 2 Others

Bombay HC21 Apr 2015WP/383/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court quashed the impugned appellate order dismissing the petitioner from Coal India Limited for failure to afford a personal hearing. The order was remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh hearing and decision within six months, based on a comparison with Maharashtra Civil Services Rules interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court.

What did the court decide?

The impugned appellate order of 26.9.2011 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision after granting a personal hearing within six months.

Rakesh S/O Ramkishor Khurana Vs Coal India Limited… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 21.04.wp.383.14.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 383/2014

¶4

( Rakesh s/o Ramkishor Khurana vs. Coal India Limited and others )

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. A.M. Sudame, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for respondents

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATED : 21^st April, 2015.

¶8

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the respondents, dated 17.3.2010, dismissing the petitioner from service as also the appellate order dated 26.9.2011, issued by the Board of Directors, upholding the order of dismissal.

¶9

Inter alia , the impugned appellate order of the Board of Directors dated 26.9.2011 is challenged by the petitioner, on the ground that the Board of Directors had not heard the petitioner before deciding the Appeal. It is stated that the provisions of Rule 36.1 of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978 are akin to Rule 23 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,1979 and Rule 23(2) was considered by the Full Bench of this Court and by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173, the Full Bench had held that the expression “consider” would include within its sweep the application of mind, personal hearing

¶10

2 21.04.wp.383.14.

¶11

and recording of reasons. It is stated that the provisions of Rule 23(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 that are interpreted by this Court in the Full Bench judgment in the case of Anil Atre vs. District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 750 are akin to the provisions of Rule 36.1 of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978. It is stated that the appellate authority ought to have heard the petitioner.

¶12

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 750 ( supra ) as also Rule 36.1 of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1979, it appears that the provisions of Rule 23(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 are similar to Rule 36.1 of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. The Full Bench of this Court has held in the reported judgment that the expression “consider” in Rule 23 (2) of the Rules of 1979 would include within its sweep, the application of mind, personal hearing and recording of reasons. The Full Bench went on to add that it is obligatory for the appellate authority to apply its mind and to pass an appropriate speaking order after affording personal hearing to the delinquent. Since Rule 36.1 of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 is couched with the language similar to the language used in Rule 23 (2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority, in this case, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since an opportunity of hearing

¶13

3 21.04.wp.383.14.

¶14

was not granted to the petitioner, the impugned order of the appellate authority is liable to be quashed and set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision, in accordance with law.

¶15

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the Board of Directors, dated 26.9.2011, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority-Board of Directors (CIL), for deciding the appeal of the petitioner after granting an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The appellate authority is directed to decide the Appeal of the petitioner as early as possible and, positively within a period of six months.

¶16

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶17

JUDGEJUDGE

¶18

sahare

Rakesh S/O Ramkishor Khurana v. Coal India Limited, through Its Chairman, Kolkata and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh S/O Ramkishor Khurana v. Coal India Limited, through Its Chairman, Kolkata and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Sarita D/O Ramdas Bhoyar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mumbai and 2 Others

Nilkanth S/O Tulsiramji Kulsange Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and 4

Sau. Nutan D/O Sayajirao Jawade (Nee Nutan W/O Naresh Ghodeswar), Nagpur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Primary Education Department, Mumbai and 7 Others

Ku. Praveena Rambhau Doifode Vs the Education Officer, (Pri.) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 4 Others

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe Vs the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other

Komalsingh S/O Kondusingh Parihar Vs the Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai and 1