Remanded

Nand Kishor Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Jharkhand HC1 Nov 2018WPC/921/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing a departmental appeal due to its lack of reasoning. The court remitted the matter for a fresh hearing on merits with a direction to pass a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to cite decisions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority was quashed. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Nand Kishor Singh Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (S) No. 921 of 2008

¶3

… Nand Kishor Singh … … Petitioner

¶4

-V e r s u s-

¶5

1.Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad through its Chairman, Dhanbad (Jharkhand). 2.Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶6

3.Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶7

4.Area General Manager, Kustore Area No.-8, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶8

5.Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Kustore Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

¶9

6.Project Officer/Agent, Ena Fire Project, Kustore Area, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad (Jharkhand). … Respondents

¶10

CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK.

¶11

For the Petitioner : - Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents-BCCL: -M/s. Amit Kumar Sinha and Nikhil Ranjan, Advocates.

¶12

¶13

19/01.11.2018 Heard Mr. Naresh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the Respondents-BCCL.

¶14

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the Charge Sheet, as contained in letter dated 20.08.2003 (Annexure-1), the findings of the Enquiry Report dated 13.11.2004 (Annexure-3) and the order of dismissal dated 04.01.2005 (Annexure-6) as well as the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 14.03.2007 vide Annexure-15 to the writ application.

¶15

On perusal of the writ application, it appears that apartfrom taking the ground of procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos. 4 (Appellate authority) by passing a very cryptic, evasive and unreasoned order dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure-15) has dismissed the Departmental Appeal (Annexure-13), preferred by the petitioner.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and on going through the order dated14.03.2007 (Annexure-15 to the writ application), passed by Respondent No.

¶17

¶18

4 (Appellate Authority) vide Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, it appears that the appellate authority has not properly appreciated the grounds taken by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ram Chander v. Union of India , reported in (1986) 3 SCC 103 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to inter alia, at Para 25 hold as under :-

¶19

“… … … …in Tulsiram Patel case that the appellate authority must not only give a hearing to the government servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the appeal. We wish to emphasize that reasoned decisions by tribunals, such as the Railway Board in the present case, will promote public confidence in the administrative process. An objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent servant is heard and given a chance to satisfy the authority regarding the final orders that may be passed on his appeal. Considerations of fair play and justice also require that such a personal hearing should be given.”

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, since the order dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure-15 to the writ application), passed by Respondent No. 4 (Appellate Authority) is without reasons, it would be apt in the interest of justice to quash the aforesaid order. In that view of the matter, the order dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure-15 to the writ application) is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner after giving opportunity to the petitioner to cite any decisions in support of his case and pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and the decision of the respondents shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(Pramath Patnaik, J.)

¶23

APK

Nand Kishor Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishor Singh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Shahid Ansari Vs State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Lalan Kumar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand Throough Its Principal Secretary And Others

Sanjay Kumar And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Parmeshwar Soren And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Vandana Kumari Vs Jharkhand Public Service Commi

Sarjen Soren And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.