JUDGMENT :

1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. This instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5233 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the writ Court has refused to interfere with the original order dated 29.09.1999 and the appellate order dated 11.09.2003 whereby the punishment of censure has been inflicted upon the writ petitioner.

3. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which requires to be enumerated, reads hereunder as:

The writ petitioner was appointed under the respondent management and working from one place to another. He was transferred to Topa Colliery of CCL where he took charge on 17.07.1992 and working as such, he was proceeded departmentally by issuing memorandum of charge levelling allegation of huge shortage of coal at Topa Colliery which was existing there even from April 1992 i.e. prior to joining of the writ petitioner at Topa Colliery.

The writ petitioner had appeared before the enquiry officer and denied the charges. The enquiry officer submitted its report finding three charges not proved, however, the Charge No.4 was partially proved. The aforesaid enquiry report was forwarded before the disciplinary authority and after following due procedure, vide order dated 29.09.1999 the punishment of censure was inflicted upon the writ petitioner. The aforesaid order was assailed before the appellate authority but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2003.

The writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5233 of 2004 challenging both the orders passed by the original authority vide order dated 29.09.1999 and the order dated 11.09.2003 passed by the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge of this Court, on contest, has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the censure being a minor punishment, has been imposed after following due procedure which is the subject matter of the instant intra-Court appeal.

4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the enquiry officer has not found three charges proved against the writ petitioner and only the Charge No.4 has been proved partially for which the punishment of censure has been imposed, which should not have been imposed because there is no laches on the part of the writ petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

His further submission before this Court is that; it is evident from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer that apart from the writ petitioner, the allegation of irregularity has also been found to be against other officials but no departmental proceeding has been initiated against them and therefore, imposing punishment against the writ petitioner is nothing but a discriminatory attitude of the respondents and to buttress his argument, he has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73.

5. Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-CCL and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents-CIL have appeared and defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge. They have submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as in the departmental proceeding, the writ Court is required to look into the procedural issue and the observance of the principles of natural justice and when the learned Single Judge is satisfied on this ground, has rightly not interfered with the impugned orders and therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties an