Shiv Murti Shukla Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12470

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 596 of 2017

¶6

Shiv Murti Shukla, S/o Shri Rampyare Shukla, Aged About 48 Years, Senior Surveyor (Under Suspension) Bagdewa, U G Mine, S E C L, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Mob..9406207151

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Chief Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Colliery Manager, Bagdewa U G Mines, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶11

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Shri Bidya Nand Mishra, Advocate appears along with Shri Ganesh Ram Burman, Advocate
For Respondents	: Shri V.R. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appears along with Shri Sudhir Kumar Bajpai and Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocates

¶12

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board

¶13

12.03.2025

¶14

By virtue of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs at

¶15

para 10:-

¶16

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner.

¶17

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

¶18

2

¶19

aside the suspension order dated 29/10/2016 (Annexure P/1).

¶20

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the so called charge sheet dated 09/12/2016 (Annexure P/2) in the interest of justice.

¶21

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to pay full wages to the petitioner.

¶22

10.5 That, any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.

¶23

It is the contention of the petitioner that since the alleged suspension order dated 29/10/2016 (Annexure P/1) has been issued by the Colliery Manager, Bagdewa, UG Mine, the Respondent No.2 herein, who was, however, not the competent authority, therefore, while taking note of the clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Order of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (in short “SECL”), the alleged suspension order issued retrospectively with effect from 16.09.2016 is bad in law. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since the said Colliery Manager, Bagdewa, UG Mine was not the authority issuing chargesheet, therefore, the charge-sheet issued by him, along with the articles of charge and statement of imputation, which even do not bear the signature of any authority and where some of the relevant spaces are blank cannot be termed to be a valid charge-sheet, therefore, it deserves to be quashed.

¶24

In reply, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner was posted as a Senior Surveyor and not as a Senior Supervisor at Bagdewa U.G. Mine at Korba, as alleged by him and, since he was caught red handed on 16.09.2016 while taking illegal gratification from the Contractor engaged in contract work in Bagdewa Mine, therefore, he has been placed under deemed suspension since the date of his

¶25

3

¶26

arrest, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders issued in respect of SECL by the Colliery Manager, who was empowered under the Standing Orders as per the delegation of power issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of SECL on 31.03.2008 for the issuance of charge-sheet, which includes the order of suspension for the employees working under his control. While referring to the Hindi Translation of statement of imputation attached with the charge-sheet, it is contended that no space are blanked, as alleged by the petitioner. The claim as made by the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

¶28

From perusal of the appointment order (Annexure P-7), issued on 04.12.1995, it appears that the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Deputy Surveyor (Mines) and, has been shown to be as Senior Surveyor/Colliery Surveyor in the alleged suspension order, dated 29.10.2016 (Annexure P-1), therefore, it cannot be said that he was posted as Senior Supervisor, as alleged by him.

¶29

It is to be seen further that the petitioner while working as Senior Surveyor/Colliery Surveyor of Bagdewa U.G. Mines, SECL of Korba region was found to be caught red handed by a team of CBI, ACB, Bhilai Official on 16.09.2016 while accepting illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant, owing to which, the case has been registered vide No.RC 124 2016 A 0007 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

¶30

4

¶31

“the Act, 1988”). In view of his involvement under the alleged offence, he has, therefore, been placed under deemed suspension with effect from the date of his detention, i.e. 16.09.2016, by the Colliery Manager, Bagdewa U.G. Mines, in exercise of the power conferred under Clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders issued in respect of SECL. The said clause is relevant to be noted at this juncture, which reads as under :-

¶32

28.9 “ Notwithstanding the provisions contained in these Standing orders, as above, the management reserves the right to suspend a workman being prosecuted in a court of law for any grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude or murder until the disposal of the trial. In such cases, the workman concerned shall be entitled to 50% of wages as subsistence allowance. In case, the above workman is finally acquitted, he would be paid full wages for the period of suspension.”

¶33

Since, the petitioner was, prima facie, found to be involved while taking the illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration from the complainant on 16.09.2016 and, the case has, thus, been registered against him while detaining him under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, therefore, in view of the aforesaid clause, he has been placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 29.10.2016 with effect from 16.09.2016, the date when he was detained. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in it. Be that as it may, the alleged suspension order has been revoked subsequently by the concerned respondent authority vide order dated 07.03.2017 (Annexure R-7). In view of such circumstances, the alleged grievance of the petitioner, thus, no more subsists.

¶34

5

¶35

Besides, it is to be seen, as reflected from the Office order (Annexure P-4) issued by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL on 31.03.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Clause 28 of the Certified Standing Orders, that all the Colliery Managers, including the respondent No.2, has been authorized to act as a disciplinary authority for charge-sheeting in respect of the workmen working or posted to work for the time being in the unit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2, who issued the impugned charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) on 09.12.2016 followed by his suspension, was not the competent authority, as alleged by the petitioner herein. Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner, that in the statements of imputation, certain relevant spaces are found to be blank is, however, noted to be rejected in view of the copies of Hindi Translation made in this regard, where, I do not find any entries, as such, are blank. In any case, the entire allegations made in the petition were, however, not found to be raised by the petitioner in his reply (Annexure P-9) to the alleged charge-sheet.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any substance in this petition, so as to call for any interference in the alleged suspension order (Annexure P-1), followed by the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2). The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶37

No order as to cost(s).

¶38

SD/- SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶39

Tumane

Shiv Murti Shukla v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Murti Shukla v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dudhawa Bandh Ka Prabhavit Kishan Majdoor Kalyan Samiti, Aamgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Krishna Kumar Parihar Vs Bhagwan Singh

Seevan Das Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maksudan Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jeetu Ram Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh