HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 37521 OF 2021

O R D E R:

Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Goda Rama Lakshmi, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner joined respondent – Singareni Collieries Company Limited as Mining Graduate Trainee (MGT) on 12.03.1983. On account of hard work, meritorious service and several achievements, he was promoted as General Manager on 20.05.2013. After serving 37 years and 8 months of dedicated service, he retired as General Manager (HRD) on

30.11.2020 on attaining the age of 60 years.

1.1 Petitioner states that he was constrained to approach this Court after his retirement as respondents nearly more than 4 years after he left the Contract Management Cell as General Manager, issued a Charge Memo (Articles of Charges) dated 26.07.2021 alleging that petitioner committed the following misconducts:

(a) He failed to workout required technical & financial implications before increasing the conventional equipment from 3 to 8 as per the request of the contractor in pre-bid meeting due to which there is a financial loss of Rs.44.73 Crores.

(b) He has failed to evaluate a formula for HEMM in combination with conventional equipment as envisaged in the order and responsible for setting of contradictory clause vide Para 1.1.3(e) and 1.1.3(g)

(c) He failed to verify the contradicting clauses in corporate in the OB contract Order for payment.

(d) He failed in taking into consideration of contractor's uploaded document which states the proposed deployment of 6.50 cum shovel in combination with 100 T Dumpers.

(e) He failed to notice the modifications approved by the authority through corrigendum-IV vide dated 2.4.2016 for enquiry no.E111500471, dated 22.02.2016, - 1.1.3 (e) not reflected as per the corrigendum in the order. But, while issuing the order, the clause which was published before corrigendum was included.

According to the respondents, the above acts amount to misconduct under the following clauses of CDA Rules.

5.1: Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the Company or of property of another person within the premises of the Company.

5.5: Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests or image of the Company.

5.9: Neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty including malingering or slowing down of work.

5.22: Any breach of any of the provisions of these rules, or any other statutes or rules. malingering or slowing down of work.

5.22: Any breach of any of the provisions of these rules, or any other statutes or rules.

4.1: Every employee of the Company shall at all times i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty, and (iii)conduct himself at all times in a manner which will enhance the reputation of the 'Company'

(iv)Every employee of the Company shall at all times do noting which is unbecoming of a public servant.

1.2 Petitioner further states that Respondents conclude that he has no defense and proceed with the Charge Memorandum (Articles of Charges), in spite of the illegality it suffers from and furnished explanation on 17.08.2021. The Enquiry Officer was appointed vide Office dated 20.09.2021. In that spite, the legality of the same is liable to be adjudicated as the ground on which the same is questioned is lack of inherent jurisdiction.

1.3 According to petitioner, the entire cause of action arose only during pre-processing of tender which was during his tenure as General Manager from 14.04.2015 to 23.04.2016. Assuming only for argument that the said process was the basis for finalization of Purchase Order, that was issued on 29.06.2016, after petitioner was moved from CMC Department. Thus, the event and/or cause of action occurred and arose during 2015-16 and on 29.06.2016 respectively. This is a crucial factor which ought to have been considered before issuing the impugned charge memo. Petitioner also states that being an Executive, he was governed by the Service Regulations call