Jagadish Ch.Panda Vs Coal India Ltd.

Heard learned counsel, Mr. B.A. Prusty for the Petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. T.K. Pattnaik on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. J. Pattnaik for the Opposite Parties.

¶16

The Petitioner while working as a Deputy Chief Manager at the Opposite Party-Corporation faced disciplinary action and after enquiry by order dated 19.07.2003 in terms of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, major penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed. The same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as per the impugned order at Annexure-11.

¶17

The memorandum of Appeal is at Annexure-10. In the said memorandum of appeal, the Petitioner had taken several grounds to justify his stand that imposition of penalty as noted merits interference by the Appellate Authority.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Relevant extract of the impugned appellate order is culled out hereunder:-

¶20

xxx xxx xxx

¶21

AND WHEREAS, the papers related to the case have been carefully considered by the undersigned and is convinced that certain charges against Sri J.C. Panda have been established, while some have not been substantiated.

¶22

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of power conferred under the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 of CIL (amended upto April, 2000). I, Shashi Kumar, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd, and Appellate Authority, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case find that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is quite reasonable and there is no scope for modification of the penalty imposed.”

¶23

xxx xxx xxx

¶24

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on a bare reading of the order passed by the Appellate Authority it indicates that the same is devoid of reasons and the same has to be set aside on this count alone and in this connection, he relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Narottam Pati vs. North Eastern Supply Company and Others reported in 2017 (Supp.-1) OLR-479.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties on the other hand submits with vehemence that while exercising appellate jurisdiction the Appellate Authority has indicated that on careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Authority and other records and submissions made, the Disciplinary Authority issued the order. And, since on scrutiny of the materials on record the order of the Disciplinary Authority has been affirmed merely because the same

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

has not been duplicated in the impugned appellate order, it cannot be said that there has been no application of mind or the impugned order suffers from the vice of lack of reasons.

¶28

On a conspectus of materials on record, taking into account the memorandum of appeal filed and the manner in which the impugned appellate order has been passed at Annexure-11, this Court is persuaded to hold that the same suffers from vice of lack of of reasoning.

¶29

It is trite law that the reasons are the heart and soul of an order and in the absence of reason an order becomes like an “inscrutable face of sphinx”. In this context, this Court respectfully refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Kanti Associates vs. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in 2010 (9) SCC 496 . In fact in the said case several judgments reiterating the principle of furnishing reasons have been succinctly stated in as much as the vanishing distinction between administrative and quasi judicial orders relating to giving reasons was also noticed referring to the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262 .

¶30

Hence considering the appellate order on the touchstone of the law cited above, this Court is left with no alternative but to quash the impugned appellate order at Annexure-11 and remand the matter back to the appellate stage for consideration of the grievance of the petitioner in an objective manner.

¶31

The Appellate Authority is called upon to dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with law on the basis of the materials on record within a period of four months from the date of

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

receipt/production of copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall communicate the date of hearing in advance giving at least ten days notice to the Petitioner enabling him to participate in the proceeding and the time limit fixed as above for disposal shall begin to run from the date of appearance of the Petitioner.

¶35

Accordingly, the W.P.(C) stands disposed of.

¶36

(V. NARASINGH)
Ayesha Judge

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Feb-2024 15:30:22

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Jagadish Ch.Panda v. Coal India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadish Ch.Panda v. Coal India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Kondala Rao Vs Republic of India

P.Srinivasa Rao Vs Republic of India

P.Srinivasa Rao Vs Republic of India

Suresh Ku.Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Kadambini Rout Vs Radha Krushna Rout

Avimanyu Das Vs Chairman,Lic of Indi