Shri Prashant Kumar Dey vs Chief General Manager

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 07-04-2026

<div> 1 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN MISC. PETITION NO 2321 OF.2022. SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR DEY Versus CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND OTHERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Shri Somesh Shukla- Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Anoop Nair-Senior Advocate with Miss Disha Rohitas-Advocate for the respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (O R D E R) (Reserved on : 10/02/2026) ( Pronounced on : 07/04/2026) The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court (“CGIT” for short) whereby, the reference proceeding arising from the punishment of removal of petitioner from service, awarded vide order dated 20.08.2015 has been decided against the petitioner/workman and punishment of removal granted to the petitioner has been confirmed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been made a victim of institutional bias and the attempt of the respondent of illegal insulation against any complaints against the Senior Management of respondent Southeastern Coalfields Ltd. (“SECL” for short). It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 2 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 contended that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1976 and he was due to superannuate on 31.03.2017 but after he had attained almost 50 years of age, then he was made a victim of frequent transfers and from 2006 to 2014 he was transferred 6 times. The last transfer took place on 28.07.2014, on which date he was transferred from Pali to Pinoura sub-area and looking to the serious health issues of himself and his wife, the petitioner had approached the management to cancel the transfer order and to post him at some other suitable place in Johila area. However, there was a demand of bribe from two Senior Managers Finance, namely Shri Sudama Modi and Shree N. N. Bhaumik and the petitioner took the only legal recourse available to him, which was to make a complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer which he did make on 8th August 2014 and when the Chief Vigilance Officer did not do anything, then he moved a complaint to the Collector, District Umaria on 07.10.2014 and as soon as the complaint was made to the Collector, the management developed malice and bias against the petitioner and a preliminary inquiry into the complaint of the petitioner was conducted by a Enquiry Committee headed by Shree P. K. Poddar, General Manager Operations of Johila area and it was found that the complaint made by the petitioner regarding demand of bribery could not be substantiated by him, and then the General Manager recommended taking necessary action against the petitioner. 3. Thereafter a charge sheet dated 09.1.2015 was issued to the petitioner containing the accusation that since the petitioner had made a complaint against senior officers, hence, it amounts to major misconduct. Thereafter an inquiry ensued in which he was not granted proper opportunity of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 3 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 hearing and then the termination order was issued on 20.08.2015 whereby he was terminated by way of removal by an order passed by the Deputy area Manager Pinoura under Johila area, SECL. 4. It is contended that the only wrong committed by the petitioner towards the employer was making complaint of senior officer about demand of bribery, that too, firstly in the official channels. Such type of victimisations of persons coming up with complaints are routinely taken in coalmines so that nobody comes up and makes any complaint of demand of bribery and the illegal flow of bribery continues without any hindrance. By taking such actions against the complainant employees, terror is to be created in the mind of employees so that in future nobody comes up and complains of demand of any bribe. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the SECL has vehemently argued that since the act of the petitioner fell within purview of Clause 26.16, 22.22 and 26.40 of certified standing orders applicable to SECL and as per Clause 26.16 the act of making accusation against the superior officer of the company without any basis is a major misconduct, therefore nothing perverse or illegal has been done by the management and the CGIT after coming to conclusion that there is no technical or legal defect in the enquiry subsequently ordered that the scope of interference of the Court or Tribunal is very restricted and therefore rejected the reference case instituted by the workman and decided the reference against the workman, which does not call for any interference from this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 4 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 7. In the present case the petitioner was admittedly appointed in SECL in the year 1976 and on the date of removal he was holding the post of Accountant which is a low paid class-III/Group C post. On the date of termination he had put in 39 years of service and he was due for superannuation within one and half years i.e. in March 2017. Just 1½ years prior to the termination major penalty of removal from service which amounts to forfeiture of past service for various retiral and service benefits itself creates doubt as to the intentions of the Management that whether the management wanted to discipline the employee, or whether the management wanted to create an example for every other employee. 8. It is not in dispute that from 2006 to 2014 the petitioner had been transferred as many as 6 times and the last transfer took place on 28.07.2017. This court has gone through the record of the CGIT and in the record of the CGIT various treatment papers are attached as per which the petitioner underwent 3 major surgeries, once in 2008 then in 2009 and again in 2011 at Christian Medical College Vellore, Tamil Nadu. All these 3 surgeries have entailed hospitalisation of 7 days or more and if an employee was being transferred despite in such circumstances then it does create some doubt over the intentions of the management. Various treatment papers of the wife of petitioner undergoing treatment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.) are on record as per which she has been receiving treatment since the year 2013 at the said hospital. 9. The only accusation against the petitioner in the charge sheet which runs into half page is that he has violated clause 26.16, 26.22 and 26.40 of the certified standing orders. The relevant clauses are as under:- Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 5 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 “26.16 Making accusations or allegations against a superior or an Officer of the company without any basis/proofs in this regard 26.22 Any wilful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental to the interests of the company. 26.40 Deliberately spreading false information/rumour with a view to bringing about disruption in company's work,” 10. The learned counsel for the respondents had vehemently pointed out to clause 26.16 which mentions that making accusation or allegation against a superior officer without any basis is in itself an misconduct. 11. The wordings of the certified standing orders in making baseless accusation or allegation cannot be extended to the cases where the accusation is of corruption. If certified standing order clause 26.16 is interpreted in a manner that even if an employee makes accusation of corruption against the senior management then it would amount to misconduct itself, runs counter to the very basic notions of transparency, probity and accountability in public employment. If complaints against senior management are scuttled in this manner by oppressing and silencing the complainant/whistle blower, then it only creates a tool for the management to indulge in unabated corruption and misappropriation of funds because no other employee would come up and make complaint against the senior management of corruption or demand of bribery. 12. On the contrary every accusation of demand of bribery and corruption has to be considered with utmost dispatch and sincerity and it has to be probed to the hilt. Only that will ensure transparency, probity and accountability. 13. In the present case the petitioner had initially made a complaint to Chief Vigilance Officer on 01.08.2014 and when this complaint did not elicit any response, then he made a complaint to the Collector of the District on 07-10- Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 6 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 2014 and then repeatedly submitted reminders to the said complaint. The complaint was in the manner that, for cancellation of transfer or for re-transfer to some suitable place, Rs.1.50 lakh is being demanded as bribe. This was the accusation in the complaint and if there is a demand of bribery then unless the employee manages to record the conversation, there would be no other proof relevant with the employee except his own assertion and that assertion has to be considered with the attending circumstances that whether that accusation seems to be plausible or possible in the given attending circumstances of the case. It is well known that getting proof of demand of bribe is very difficult, and the number of acquittals that take place in criminal trials under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for want of proof of demand, is well known. Even in criminal matters, the Economic Offences wing and Special Police Establishment of Lokayukta go the extra mile to ensure tape-recording of demand of bribe, so that demand can be proved lateron. Merely because the complainant remains unable to prove the demand, cannot lead to an inference that the accusation was malicious. 14. The trend in Indian Law is to promote and protect the whistle blower, and not to award penalty to a whistle blower. Under various State Acts creating Lokayukta, every member of public has been given right to lodge complaint in the matter of corruption. In Madhya Pradesh, the M.P. Lokayukta Evan Up-Lokayukta Adhiniyam 1981 has such provision under Section-9 and the Rules framed thereunder. 15. To incorporate probity and purity in public employments, the Parliament has enacted the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, and the Central Vigilance Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 7 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 Commission Act 2003. No doubt, under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, there is a penal provision under Section 46 to deal with frivolous complainants, but that can be invoked only before the Court of law. A Court of law has to be satisfied that there was a frivolous and false complaint in terms of Section 46. 16. Here, what has happened, is that the same authority/committee of three officers that had investigated the complaint, ordered initiation of Departmental Enquiry and a subordinate authority issued charge-sheet and dismissal order. 17. This happened in the manner that when the complaint was made to the Collector, then the SECL authorities woke up and constituted a committee comprising of the following officers : (1) Shri P. K. Poddar General Manager (Operations) Johila area (2) Shri R. K. Agrawal Deputy General Manager (Civil) Johila area (3) Shri G. K. Mishra Senior Manager (Personnel) Johila area. 18. This court has gone to the inquiry report of the said committee which conducted the inquiry into the accusations of the petitioner. The inquiry committee has simply held that since no proof has been submitted of demand of bribe, and therefore the accusation seems to be incorrect and in the same breath the members of the enquiry committee directed issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner. This charge sheet was issued under the orders of members of the enquiry committee who were General Manager, Deputy General Manager and Senior Manager of Johila area and the charge sheet was issued by Sub-area Manager of Pinoura sub area and then termination order has been issued by the same authority. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 8 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 19. Therefore it is a case where already there was a dictate of the higher management to issue charge sheet against the petitioner and take action against the petitioner and under the dictate of higher management, the Sub-area Manager issued the charge sheet and then issued the termination order. The relevant note sheet in the proceedings of the inquiry committee which investigated the complaint of the petitioner has been perused by this Court. After the report had been signed by the three members of the enquiry committee, then the matter was sent to Assistant Personnel Manager, Johila area who recommended to General Manager Johila for appropriate directions and then the General Manager Johila area on the note sheet, passed the following dictate: “disciplinary action as recommended against the employee concerned be initiated”. 20. It was therefore a clear case of dictate and dictate being issued by the General Manager Johila area, and the removal order being issued by Sub-area Manager being a much Junior and subordinate authority only indicates the draconian and dictatorial manner in which the SECL has acted in the present case. 21. The only accusation that the petitioner had made against the senior management was of demand of bribe and apart from that, there was no any such allegation which could have been said to be malicious in nature. The menace of corruption and bribery is not unknown to anybody. Once an employee makes a complaint of demand of bribery against the Manager, then at least such accusation should not be made a tool to remove the employee, rather the persons making such Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 9 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 accusations have to be dealt with sympathetically, and at least neutrally. They should not be made victims of witch-hunt, to be burnt at stake. 22. In the present case the petitioner had been subjected to six transfers in the last eight years and he was suffering from various health issues as duly evident from the record of CGIT. If hardly one and half years prior to superannuation, he was making complaint against two Senior Finance Managers of demand of bribery, then it was hardly a reason to remove the petitioner from service, just 1½ years prior to superannuation, and after putting in almost 40 years of service. 23. It is a case of shooting a fly with a sledgehammer which is least expected of a mammoth organization like the SECL which is a public sector organization of Government of India. It is a brutal, shameless and disgraceful show of organisational bias by the mammoth organisation against an hapless employee, who is sitting near his retirement and has put in almost 40 years of service. 24. It is clear that the SECL just wanted to set an example to other employees so that they may not come up and make complaints in the matters of corruption. It seems to be a tool to scuttle such complaints in future and gave a tool to the senior managers to indulge in any practices in any manner they wanted. 25. Clause 26.16 of the certified standing orders cannot be interpreted to mean that even the complaints of demand of bribe cannot be made by an employee against a senior. Once that interpretation is given to clause 26.16, then it would be contrary to the basic notions of transparency and probity in public life and would be nothing but a tool given to the management to scuttle any complaint of bribery and corruption. Only if the matter of allegation of bribery had been negated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 10 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 by a criminal Court in Criminal Trial, then such an action could have been contemplated by the management. At least one stage, i.e. at the stage of enquiring allegations of corruption and demand of bribe, there has to be finding of an Court or of an authority not connected with the management. The management cannot press in service, its own decision to close the complaint, and then remove the complainant from service. This is a classic case of organisational bias and hits at the basic principles of natural justice. 26. The allegations against the petitioner therefore do not amount to any misconduct at all. It was not only a biased and prejudiced action but a classic case of draconian action to set an example to other employees to refrain from making any complaint of bribery and corruption against the senior management. 27. Therefore it is a fit case where the impugned award passed by the CGIT as well as the removal order passed by the SECL has to be set aside. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned award passed by the CGIT dated 16/03/2022 as well as the termination/removal order dated 20/08/2015 are set aside. 28. As the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation almost 9 years ago, therefore his retirement benefits shall be settled within 60 days of this order and he shall also be entitled to 100% backwages till he attained the age of superannuation. 29. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on all the retiral benefits, which shall get increased to 12% per annum if the benefits are not Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45 11 M.P. NO. 2321 OF 2022 released within 60 days of this order. It is clarified that no interest is payable on back-wages. 30. The petitioner is also awarded cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh Only) for the litigation before the CGIT as well as before this Court. 31. In the above terms, the petition is allowed and disposed of . (VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 07-04-2026 18:51:45</div>