Allowed¶26

Dilip Kumar v. Chairman Cum Managing Director

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2025WPS/2355/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 2355 of 2016; decided 24.06.2025 (2025:CGHC:27486); SECL regular labourer removal from service; appellate authority's non-speaking order dismissing departmental appeal set aside; failure to examine standing instructions/rules compliance, natural justice, evidentiary warrant of disciplinary findings and adequacy of penalty; appeal remitted for fresh consideration within 03 months; Article 226/227; Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01) set aside; appeal remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration by following due process in accordance with law within 03 months; no costs. ¶26

Dilip Kumar Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority's order dated 08.10.2015 dismissing the petitioner's appeal, being a non-speaking order passed merely after stating the facts without considering the appeal on merits, is sustainable.

¶19

Court's answer

Before passing final order, the appellate authority ought to have recorded findings on whether the procedure laid down in the standing instruction/rules was followed, whether there was any violation of the principle of natural justice, whether the disciplinary authority's findings were warranted by the evidence on record, and whether the penalty imposed was adequate, inadequate or severe.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the appeal was dismissed straightaway merely after stating the facts of the case without considering its merits, the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01) is liable to be set aside.

¶24

Key takeaways

The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the petitioner's appeal by following due process, as narrated by the court, in accordance with law within 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Article 226/227, Constitution of India) by a regular labourer of South Eastern Coalfields Limited challenging the appellate authority's order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01), which dismissed his appeal against removal from service ordered on 15.05.2015. Held (Single Bench, Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.): the appellate order was non-speaking; it merely noted that the appeal was preferred within time, that the petitioner's absence from 2010 to 2012 was unsatisfactory, and, considering the gravity of misconduct, dismissed the appeal without recording findings on (i) compliance with the procedure laid down in the standing instructions/rules, (ii) any violation of the principle of natural justice, (iii) whether the disciplinary authority's findings were warranted by the evidence on record, and (iv) whether the penalty imposed was adequate, inadequate or severe. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal by following due process in accordance with law within 03 months. Petition allowed; no costs.

¶1

Page No.1 of 3 IN WPS-2355-2016

¶2

2025:CGHC:27486

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2355 of 2016

¶6

Dilip Kumar S/o Late Shri Kirat Ram, Aged About 25 Years Regular Labour R/o Village Bhadra, Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Digitally signed by SAIFAN SAIFAN KHAN Date: KHAN 2025.06.26 16:37:29 +0530

¶10

1 - Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, P/ A South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager, Sohagpur Region, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy General Manager, P/ I R South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Office Of The Manager, Damni U G Mine, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Damni Underground Minefield P. O. Khairha Distt. Shahdol Madhya Pradesh, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 6 - The Manager, Mine Damni South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Damni Underground Minefield P. O. Khairha Distt. Shahdol Madhya Pradesh, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶13

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate

¶14

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶15

(Order on Board)

¶16

Page No.2 of 3 IN WPS-2355-2016

¶17

24.06.2025

¶18

1. This writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority finding no merit and, thereby, affirming the order dated 15.05.2015, by which, the petitioner has been removed from service.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is a non-speaking and unreasonable order, as merely after stating the facts, the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority finding no merit, which is not the correct manner to dispose of the appeal and the appellate authority was required to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, the present petition be allowed.

¶20

3. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-SECL would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

5. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 would show that the appellant authority has only stated that the appeal of the petitioner was preferred within time, but his absence from 2010 to 2012 is not satisfactory and, therefore, considering the gravity of misconduct,

¶23

Page No.3 of 3 IN WPS-2355-2016

¶24

petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed. However, the appellant authority ought to have recorded a finding that whether the procedure laid down in the standing instruction/rules has been followed or whether there is any violation of principle of natural justice or whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence available on record or whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and, thereafter, could have passed the final order, which has not been done in the present case and, straightaway, merely after stating the facts of the case, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed without considering its merits. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01) is liable to be set aside.

¶25

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01), passed by the appellate authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal of the petitioner by following due process, as narrated above, in accordance with law within 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

7. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No

¶27

cost.

¶28

s@if

Dilip Kumar v. Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar v. Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadbhav Engineering Limited Vs Public Works Department

Gopal Singh Pawar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalidas Banodhe Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sheela Toppo Vs Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank

Rajeev Tyagi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

X Vs State of Chhattisgarh