Surendra v. South Eastern Coalfield Limited

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6957 of 2017 Surendra, S/o Late Mochiram, Caste Belma, aged about 59 yrs., R/o Mitawa Nagar, Ward No.9, of Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri, PO Korea Colliery,Tahsil Baikunthpur And District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, S. E. C. L. Head Quarters, Seepath Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director(Personnel), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, S. E. C. L. Head Quarters, Seepath Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Sub Area Manager, North Chirmiri (Doman Hill Group) Sub Area Of The Chirmiri Area Of S. E. C. L., P. O. Haldi Bari, Tahsil Khadgawan, Civil And Revenue District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

...Respondents

For Petitioner :

Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate For Respondents :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Shukla with Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 11.12.2017 Heard.

1. The challenge to the impugned notice in the petition is mainly on the ground that the notice is absolutely vague and does not contain any detail. There are no list of document, list of witnesses and it cannot be said to be a chargesheet against the petitioner and with this kind of notice, the petitioner cannot be subjected to departmental enquiry.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent-SECL appearing in this case submitted that the respondent-SECL would be issuing a detailed chargesheet with the articles of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents

and witnesses, by which, the charges are proposed to be proved and only on the basis of the impugned charge-sheet, further proceeding shall not be drawn.

3. In the considered opinion of this Court, this statement made, at the bar, by the counsel for respondent-SECL is sufficient to protect the petitioner against an arbitrary action of holding departmental enquiry on undisclosed charges under the notice impugned in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given liberty to challenge further departmental action on such ground as may be available to him under the law.

5. It goes without saying that the petitioner has any grievance against detailed charge-sheet, if any issued in future, it will always be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.

6. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed off placing on record the statement of the respondent-SECL with the clear direction that if the respondent-SECL intend to proceed in departmental enquiry against the petitioner, then shall issue a proper charge-sheet along with list of document and witnesses.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha