Quashed

Chandan Kumar v. the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Commissoner

Jharkhand HC21 Jan 2020WPC/678/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge held that summons issued under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to employees of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization for a departmental inquiry were illegal and arbitrary. The proceeding was quashed as CMPF employees are governed by their own Regulations, not the CCS Rules.

What did the court decide?

The quest due to summon dated 03.01.2019 and 04.02.2019 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with the regulation of CMPF.

Chandan Kumar Vs the Coal Mines Provident Fund… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 678 of 2019

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. No.2410 of 2019

¶5

Chandan Kumar

¶6

Mukesh Kumar Paswan

¶7

Dhiraj Kumar

¶8

Nitesh Kumar

¶9

Nagmani Kumar Paswan

¶10

Ritesh Kumar

¶11

Amit Ranjan

¶12

… Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, having its office at Dhanbad, Opposite Police Line, Dhanbad through its Comissioner.

¶15

The Commissioner, the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, having its office at Dhanbad, Opposite Police Line, Dhanbad

¶16

The Enquiry officer/Regional Commissioner-1, the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, (SG) presently posted at Post Gery Patka, Nagpur, Nagpur

¶17

….. Respondents

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK

¶19

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶21

¶22

05/ 21.01.2020 The petitioners have approached this Court with the following

¶23

prayers:-

¶24

(I) For a direction upon the respondents to send to this Hon’ble Court all the records appertaining to the issuance of the summons to the petitioner Nos. 1 & 6 dated 03.01.2019 (Anneuxre-7) and rest of the petitioners dated 04.02.2019, wherein petitioners were directed to appear in the departmental enquiry before the respondent No.3 for preliminary hearing on 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 at 11 am at the Coal Mines Provident Fund Headquarter Office, CMPFO, Dhanbad.

¶25

(II) To quash/set aside the orders dated 03.01.2019 and 04.02.2019 as being completely illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law in view of the fact that Rule 14 and 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not applicable in the case of these petitioners.

¶26

(III) Thereafter, a prayer has been made to the extent that the departmental inquiry proposed as against these petitioners being done on the basis of the CCS/CCA Rules, 1965 is a complete non-application of mind of the respondents and as such, the same is fit to be quashed by this Court.

¶27

(IV) Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to restrain themselves from taking any coercive action as against the present petitioners.

¶28

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioners are employee of the CMPFO and posted in different places in State of Jharkhand and were appointed in the year, 2014 to the post of Lower Division Clerk. They were promoted to the post of SSA (Social Security Assistant) in the level 4 of the pay matrix. It is further the case of the petitioners that they were working satisfactory under the respondents, but all of sudden, a Memorandum dated 14.09.2018 was issued against the petitioners, wherein it was intimated that respondents proposed to hold an enquiry against them for the substance of imputation of misconduct and willful insubordination and articles of charge vide Annexure-1, list of documents, list of witnesses by which the charge is to be proved was also handed over. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted their respective representations denying the allegations levelled against them. But, the respondents have not considered the same and vide Summons dated 03.01.2019 directed the petitioners to appear before the Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Inquiry for preliminary hearing on 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 at 11.00 am at the CMFO headquarters at Dhanbad. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶29

Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that summons issued against the petitioners under Rule 14 and 18 of the CCS (CCA Rules, 1965 is completely against the judicial pronouncement and as such, same is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. The summons against the petitioners have been issued in illegal and arbitrary manner. Learned counsel places heavy reliance of the judgment of this Court in case of Devashish Das Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No.1558 of 2011 and submits that the petitioners are employees of CMPF and they are guided by the provisions of CMPF Regulations, 1964 and not by the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under which they were proceeded and as such, the entire proceeding conducted under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is vitiated and wholly without jurisdiction.

¶30

On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that Rule 4 of the Regulation empowers to take aid of CCS (CCA) Rules in the matter not covered by the Regulation, which are applicable to the corresponding category of Central Government Servants subject to such modifications and variations as the Commissioner may, with the approval of the Central Government, by order,

¶31

specify from time to time. Regulation 27 also provides for almost same Conduct Rules, which is applicable to the Central Government Employees and as such, in view of the provisions of Rules, 4 and 27 of the Regulation, there is no illegality if the proceeding was initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules. Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization is a statutory body under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Coal, Government of India established under the CMPF and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1948 and in pursuance to Sub-Section (5) of the Section 3 C of the CMPF and Miscellaneous Act, 1948 and CMPF (Staffs and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1964 have been made by the BoT, Coal Mines Provident Fund, with the approval of the Central Government and this Regulation is applicable to every whole time employee of the organization.

¶32

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioners needs consideration. Admittedly, the petitioners are employees of CMPF and they are guided by the provisions of CMPF Regulations, 1964 and not by the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under which the proceeding was initiated against them and as such, the entire proceeding conducted under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not tenable in the eyes of law. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No.1558 of 2011 (Devashish Das Vs. Union of India & Ors.) , wherein it was held that the proceeding under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the employees of CMPF rather, they are guided by provisions of CMPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964.

¶33

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, impugned order/orders is not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, summon dated 03.01.2019 and 04.02.2019 are quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at a liberty to proceed in accordance with the Regulation of CMPF, if at all required.

¶34

Accordingly, instant writ petition as well as I.A. NO. 2410 of 2019 stand disposed of.

¶35

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶36

punit/

Chandan Kumar v. the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Commissoner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Kumar v. the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through Its Commissoner

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

Chandrawati Devi Vs Water Resources Department

Radha Mohan Singh Vs Jharkhand Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Promila Marandi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mahrani Devi Alias Ram Rati Devi Vs The Chairman Cum Chief Managing Director Bharat Cocking Coal Limited And Ors.

Singrai Tuti Vs Road Construction

Dr Pratik Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary