A disciplinary punishment cannot stand if it is not supported by the statutory rules or if the misconduct is not tied to lawfully assigned duties, as established in the Coal India Executives’ Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the appellate order dated 04.04.2023 passed by respondents No. 1 and 2, whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has further challenged the punishment order dated 07.07.2022 issued by respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/2), by which a major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner in purported exercise of powers under Rule 28.1(f) of the Coal India Executives’ Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 2021 (for short ‘Rules, 2021’). It is contended that the penalty imposed, namely “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with immediate effect, with a direction that the executive shall not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and will not have effect on future increments upon expiry of the penalty period”, is not a punishment prescribed under Rule 28.1(f) of the Rules, 2021, and is therefore illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the statutory rules governing the field.

3. The petitioner has sought for following relief(s) :-

“10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents.

10.2 To kindly quash the Appellate order dated 04/04/2023 issued by the Respondent no.1 & 2 (Annexure P/1)

10.3 To kindly quash the Punishment Order dated 07/07/2022 (Annexure P/2) issued by the respondent no.3.

10.4 To kindly direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits.

10.5 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”

4. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer by the respondent Coal India Limited and was placed under the services of respondent South Eastern Coalfields Limited (‘SECL’) vide order dated 29.11.2005. The petitioner has throughout maintained an unblemished service record. As per the instructions dated 06.09.2012 issued by the General Manager (Finance), it was specifically directed that all bills pertaining to the execution of works or other expenses in respect of the Dipka Expansion Project were to be audited and passed by the Dipka Expansion Accounts Department, irrespective of value and irrespective of whether the works were awarded by the Area or the Project, except Capital Bills, Coal Loading/Coal Transport Bills, OBR Bills, and Surface Miner Bills, which were to be received by the Dipka Expansion Accounts Department only for record-keeping purposes and were required to be audited and passed by the Dipka Area Finance Department. The aforesaid system was strictly followed and complied with by the petitioner. However, to the shock and dismay of the petitioner, the respondent Chairman-cum-Managing Director issued a Memorandum/Charge-sheet dated 08.05.2020, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to properly comply with the withholding instructions issued by the higher authorities and that the petitioner did not compute the bil