Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BABULAL & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL N0.10867 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5716 of 1996)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals arise from the order made on November 21,
1995 by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in
FMAT No.1548/90 and 250/92. Admitted position is that the
respondent Babulal was Senior Mining Engineer and the other
first respondent Maheshwari Sharma was a Manager working in
the South Govindpur Colliery, Govindpur area. On June 30,
1989, an accident had occurred at 2.00 p.m. due to fall of
the roof in XI Seam (of coal) due to which five miners died
and two miners were seriously injured. It is the case of the
appellant that both the first respondents were not present
at the site nor had they Waken necessary safety precautions
to aver accident to the miners. A fact finding Committee
came to be appointed co find out the cause for the death of
the five and injury to two miners. The report dated July 1,
1989 appears to have put it pointedly That there was
dereliction of the duty on the part of the respondents
resulting in the mine accident. Consequently, the appellant
exercised the power under Rule 12.4(1)(c) of the Common Coal
Cadre, 1974 which reads as under:
"12.4. Termination
(i) Unless otherwise specifically
provided, the contract of
appointment of the executive Cadre
employee may be terminated
otherwise than on disciplinary
grounds:
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) With three months’ notice or
pay in lieu thereof on confirmation
in the service, on either side."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
On the basis thereof, the service of both the first
respondents came co be terminated. It is not in dispute that
this Court Sn C.A. No.3673 of 1988 titled G.P. Lal vs. Coal
India Ltd. had struck down the rule as violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the rule was never in
vogue to invoke the exercise of the power by the appellants.
The question then is: what would be the position of the
respondents? lt is not far to seek that when charge of
dereliction of duty was Imputed to both the first
respondents, it was necessary to hold an enquiry to give an
opportunity to them before taking any disciplinary action
for the alleged dereliction of the duty. It is, therefore,
necessary that the appellant should hold an enquiry against
both the first respondents giving reasonable opportunity to
them according to the rule. Constitution bench rendered the
decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderaded & Ors. vs. B.
Karnukar & Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 7274 had held that the
delinquent must be deemed to be under suspension pending
enquiry.
In view of the above, we hold that the respondents are
entitled to the subsistence allowance during the pending
enquiry. Enquiry should be completed within six months from
the date of the receipt of the order. Subsistence allowance
shall be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of
the copy or the order.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.