Disciplinary authorities must provide valid reasons for differing from enquiry reports, and courts will not interfere unless findings are arbitrary or lack evidentiary support.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6086 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order of punishment dated 14.09.2022 passed against the petitioner/appellant after conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was initially appointed as Junior Executive Trainee (Mining) on 04.09.1993.

4. Thereafter, vide office order issued under memo no.406 dated 30.03.2020, General Manager (P), Coal India Limited communicated that the competent authority of Coal India Ltd has approved “CIL Executive Role Profile of Unique Position” for providing role clarity to all the incumbents of unique positions of Executive cadre employee.

5. In the month of August, 2020, the writ petitioner/appellant was transferred to the post of Project Officer in Amalgamated Amlo Dhori (AAD) Open Cast.

6. Further, in terms of the decision taken on 31.07.2020 under Special Spot e-auction in respect of Racks Bid and vide letter no.2516 dated 20.08.2020, the Chief Manager (M&S) Rail Operation, CCL, Ranchi intimated the Area Sales Manager, Dhori amongst others.

7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that vide memo no.1051 dated 08.09.2021, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner/appellant under Rule 30.3 of Coal India Executive Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.

8. On 01.05.2022, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report observing therein that the charges being partially proved. But vide impugned memorandum issued under memo no.702 dated 21.06.2022, the respondent no.2 has observed that the charge of advertently allowing loading of coal of mixed size to the non-core consumers who were allotted coal of (-) 100 mm size in violation of terms and conditions of Special Spot E- auction held on 31.07.2020 is fully sustainable and the writ petitioner/appellant advertently failed to discharge his duties/obligations as “Project Officer” as laid down in the OM dated 30.03.2020 of the Coal India Limited, therefore, there are sufficient grounds to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer in holding the charge, as partially proved.

9. Thereafter, on 06.07.2022, the writ petitioner submitted his objection against the memorandum issued under memo no.702 dated 21.06.2022 inter-alia on the ground that the respondent no.2 has failed to take into consideration that mere observation of enquiry officer with respect to charge no.1 at any stretch of imagination shall not take the shape of proof.

10. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ application being W.P.(S) No.3360 of 2022 challenging the memorandum dated 21.06.2022 issued by respondent no.4. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition order of penalty dated 14.09.2022 was passed against the petitioner, accordingly, the writ petitioner had filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No.8750 of 2022 in W.P.(S) No.3360 of 2022 with a prayer to challenge the order of penalty dated14.09.2022 passed d