##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad

And

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

M.A.T.583 of 2024

Shyam Kumar Chaurasia

Versus

Coal India Limited and another

For the appellant : Mr. Ajay Debnath

For the respondent/ : Mr. Pranit Bag,

Coal India Ltd. Mr. Debabrata Das,

Mr. Saptarshi Mukherjee,

Mr. Tirthankar Das,

Mr. A. Das

Judgment on : 13.05.2026

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant and the learned

advocate representing the respondents.

2. A short issue which arose for consideration before the learned Single

Judge was whether the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Disciplinary Authority dismissing

the petitioner/appellant from service is sustainable or not.

3. It was the case of the writ petitioner/appellant that he was visited

with a charge memo dated 26.07.2012, which led to issuance of an

order of punishment. The charge memo alleged that as a Mine

Manager of the Coalfield, he was responsible for some abnormal

shortage of coal stock, which put the organization into a financial

loss of Rs.44,12,606/-. The disciplinary proceeding commenced

based on the charge memo and resulted in an order of punishment

dated 10.09.2015. The punishment awarded to the writ

petitioner/appellant was as follows:

“Reduction to one stage lower in time scale for one year

on expiry of which it will not operate to postpone his

future increment and he be allowed pay which they

would have drawn in the normal course to meet end of

justice.”

4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order which, according

to the writ petitioner/appellant was also rejected thereby conforming

the punishment.

5. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ

petitioner/appellant that the issue arising out of the charge memo

dated 26.07.2012 attained finality between the parties by the order

of punishment dated 10.09.2015. Therefore, there was no scope

whatsoever for the authorities to serve a show-cause notice dated

16.03.2020, which resulted in passing of the order of dismissal dated

18.08.2020. According to the learned advocate for the writ

petitioner/appellant, the second show cause was barred on the

principle of promissory and equitable estoppel.

6. The learned advocate for the respondents, on the other hand,

submits that this show cause notice dated 16.03.2020 was issued by

2

a competent authority under Rule 34.1 of the Coal India Executives

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to

as the “1978 Rules”) applicable to the writ petitioner/applicant. He

relies upon the provision to sustain the issuance of the second show

cause in view of petitioner’s conviction, based on a judgment of

conviction dated 15.10.2018 passed in the criminal case lodged by

the CBI in respect of the allegations for which the

petitioner/appellant was earlier awarded the major punishment in

the departmental proceeding, extracted above.

7. He submits that the Rule 34.1 provides the scope for passing such

an order and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by

the learned Single Judge. He refers to a decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Life Insurance Corporation

of India Vs. Mukesh Poonachand Shah reported in (2020)12 SCC

144

8. We have considered the rival submissions. The respondents have

relied on Rule 34.1 of the 1978 Rules. Therefore, we consider it

apposite to reproduce the same as under:

“34.1. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 29 or 30 or

31 the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties

specified in rule 27 in any of the following circumstances—

i) Where the employee has been convicted on a criminal

charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived

at by a judicial trial; or

ii) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons

to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably

practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in

these rules; or

3

iii) Where th