SRITAM DAS v. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-CUM-CMD,BURLA

Page 2 of 18 Chairman cum- Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited / Disciplinary Authority (OP No.1) under the aforesaid Rules, 1978 imposing a Minor Penalty of "Censure" upon the Petitioner under Rule 31 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 and the Petitioner also challenges the order No. CIL / C5A (iv) / SD /351 /AA / 953 dated 12.12.2017 under Annexure-22 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited / Appellate Authority (OP No.2) declining to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

I. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

3. The brief fact of the case is that:

(i) The Petitioner is serving as Manager (Personnel) in E-5 grade with effect from 15.06.2016 in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) at its Bhubaneswar Office.

(ii) While the matter stood thus and in the year 2008 when the Petitioner was working as Senior Personnel Officer, MCL, Bharatpur OCP, On 22.02.2008, the General Manager (P&IR), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, issued an internal circular inviting applications from the departmental candidates, who passed Diploma from recognized institute having Government/ AICTE/SCTE recognition and successfully completed the course before the date of issue of circular for selection/placement to the post of Assistant Foreman(Tr).

(iii) The last date of submission of application was 10.03.2008 and one application format was enclosed with the internal circular. In the said internal circular, it was also stated that the education, technical qualification and caste certificates etc. should be attested by a gazetted

2

Page 3 of 18

officer and duly processed through the respective Controlling Officer and Area Personnel Manager and regarding recognition of the institute by Government/ AICTE/SCTE, the candidate have to produce the proof and the same shall be deemed to be certified on forwarding the application by Controlling Officer/ Area Personnel Manager.

(iv) Pursuant to the aforesaid internal circular, the departmental candidates filed their applications with their Educational Certificate, Cast Certificate and Technical Certificate obtained from recognized institute having Government/ AICTE/SCTE recognition.

(v) After receipt of applications from the candidates, on 09.03.2008 and 10.03.2008, on telephonic directives of the Personnel Manager, MCL, Bharatpur OCP, the Petitioner verified and certified seventeen applications as per the data available in the service record of candidates and handed over same to the Personnel Manager, Bharatpur OCP. On 10.03.2008, the Personnel Manager, Bharatpur OCP forwarded the said applications along with educational certificate, cast certificate and technical certificate obtained from recognized institute having Government/ AICTE/ SCTE recognition to the Area Personnel Manager, Bharatpur Area.

(vi) On 11.03.2008, the Area Personnel Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Bharatpur Area forwarded the said applications with Educational Certificate., Caste Certificate and Technical Certificate obtained from recognized institute having Government/ AICTE/SCTE recognition of intending candidates to the General Manager (P&IR),

MCL.

3

Page 4 of 18

(vii) On 16.04.2008, the General Manager (P&IR), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, wrote a letter to the Area Personnel Manager, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Bharatpur Area intimating therein that the written test for selection to the post of Assistant Foreman (Tr) shall be held on 27.04.2008 at Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Headquarter at Burla.

(viii) It is submitted that on 27.04.2008, the candidates have duly appeared in the written test conducted by the Headquarter of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited/ Opposite Party No.3 at Burla.

(ix) After written test conducted by the Headquarter of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited at Burla, on 29.05.2008, the General Manager (P&IR), Mahanadi Coalfields Limited issued a letter to the candidates for attending viva-voce test on 17.06.2008 at 10 AM in DPs Conference Hall, 2nd Floor, Corporate Office, MCL.

(x) While the matter stood thus, some unsuccessful candidates filed complaints before the Opposite Parties inter-alia stating that some of the candidates filed diploma certificates, which are not recognized by Govt./AICTE/SCTE. After receipt of complains, the Chief Vigilance Officer, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, started investigation. On 11.02.2009, the Chief Vigilance Officer, Mahanadi Coalfield Limited, issued a letter to the Petitioner in respect of certifying the application of non-recognized diploma certificate holders.

(xi) In the said letter, it was alleged that the Petitioner forwarded and verified seventeen diploma certificates of JRN Rajasthan Vidayapeeth, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, which are not recognized by AICTE/SCTE. For the first time CVO, MCL deliberately deleted the

4

Page 5 of 18

word Govt. in the recognition part. The Petitioner was also directed to file his reply within seven days of receipt of letter.

(xii) After receipt of the said letter, on 26.02.2009, the Petitioner submitted his reply before the Chief Vigilance Officer, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, denying all the allegations made against him.

(xiii) It is submitted that viva-test has not been conducted till today and no promotion orders are issued by Mahandi Coalfields Limited in favour of successful candidates. Being aggrieved by such inaction of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, some of the successful candidates filed a writ application in this Court and the said writ application was registered as W.P.(C) No15725 of 2008. On 16.04.2009, this Court was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid writ application.

(xiv) The Petitioner verified from the available service records of the applicants and handed over the application forms of seventeen persons, who had submitted the Diploma certificates of Distance Education of Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan at Talcher in the district of Angul to the Personnel Manager, Bharatpur OCP. Out of seventeen persons, three numbers of persons filed the aforesaid Writ Application before this Court.

(xv) It is submitted that even though this Court on 16.04.2009 in the aforesaid Writ Petition specifically directed to form a High Level Committee consisting of one of the Officers of the Management of MCL and one of the representatives of the AICTE, DEC and UGC as members and the Director, DEC as its Chairman to enquire into the matter in

5

Page 6 of 18 order to find out whether the certificates issued by UGC, AICTE and Distance Education Council are correct or not. Till today, it is not communicated to anybody by Mahanadi Coalfields Limited that whether such a High Level Committee as directed by this Court was ever formed or not and if formed, what was the decision of such High Level Committee taken pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15725 of 2008.

(xvi) It is submitted that on 16.04.2009, the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India issued an office memorandum to the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Opposite Party No.3 directing to initiate a minor penalty proceeding against the Petitioner along with other nineteen persons with a view to impose penalty other than "Censure".

(xvii) While the matter stood thus, on 27.06.2009, the Chairman- cum- Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Opposite Party No.1 relying on the aforesaid office memorandum of the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India issued the memorandum of charges dated 27.06.2009 to the Petitioner, wherein it is proposed to take action against him under Rule 31 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Limited.

(xviii) After receipt of the impugned memorandum, on 07.07.2009 the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Opposite Party No.1 requesting to supply the decisions of High Level Committee as per the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15725 of 2008.

6

Page 7 of 18

(xix) The memorandum dated 27.06.2009 issued by the Chairman- cum- Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Opposite Party No.1 under Rule 31 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Limited to impose minor penalty other than censure as per the direction given by the CVC, New Delhi on Petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, bad in law.

(xx) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Opposite Party No.1 issued the memorandum dated 27.06.2009 to the Petitioner on the ground that he certified the applications of seventeen candidates of Bharatpur OCP, Bharatpur Area without verifying whether the diploma certificates submitted by the applicants and issued by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan are recognized and he also considered and certified applications of the said seventeen employees who have attended two years course claiming as three years course (lateral entry), which is against the internal circular.

(xxi) It is submitted that the aforesaid allegations made against the Petitioner by the Opposite Parties are false, baseless, frivolous, incorrect and concocted. The Petitioner further submits that the internal circular dated 22.02.2008 clearly suggests that the departmental candidates who were in possession of diploma qualifications obtained from recognized institute having Government/AICTE/SCTE recognition may apply for the post of Assistant Foreman (Tr). It further spells out that regarding recognition of the Institute by Government/AICTE/SCTE, the candidates have to produce the proof and the same shall be deemed to

7

Page 8 of 18 be certified on forwarding application by Controlling Officer/Area Personnel Manager.

(xxii) JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan, which is a recognized institution as per the Notifications dated 12.01.1987 and 19.08.2003 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, Government of India. The JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan admitted students in diploma courses for distance education from 01.06.2001 to 2007-08 which is approved by the Distance Education Council.

(xxiii)It may not be out of place to mention here that the Distance Education Council (DEC) was established in the year 1991 under Section 16(7) read with Section 5(2) of Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. The Distance Education Council is a statutory council for regulating the distance education programmes. The University Grants Commission vide its letter dated 03.07.2006 granted ex-post-facto approval for the students admitted by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan under the distance education mode from 1st June 2001 to 31st August 2005. The Distance Education Council also extended the said approval for the academic session July, 2007 vide its meeting held on 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007. Hence the Petitioner has not committed any misconduct for certifying the applications of seventeen candidates of Bharatpur OCP, Bharatpur Area along with their technical diploma certificates issued by the Directorate of Distance

8

Page 9 of 18

Education, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University. Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

(xxiv) On 19.01.2009, Dr. S.P.Singh, Regional Officer, AICTE, Chandigarh wrote a letter to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited inter-alia stating that Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur is not approved by the AICTE till date. In reply to the said letter, on 05.03.2009, the Registrar of Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur wrote a letter to the Secretary, All India Council For Technical Education, New Delhi explaining the detail provisions of law & facts and further requested to withdraw the letter dated 19.01.2009 immediately with a clarification to the university as well as the Chief Vigilance Officer, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited.

(xxv) It is submitted that the sole allegations made by the Opposite Parties against the Petitioner that he certified the applications of seventeen candidates of Bharatpur OCP, Bharatpur Area along with their technical diploma certificates issued by the Directorate of Distance Education, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan which is not recognized by either AICTE or SCTE.

(xxvi) It may be noted that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan is an institution recognized by both the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, Government of India and University Grant Commission. The Directorate of Distance Education of the said University is also recognized by Distance Education Council (DEC), which is a statutory

9

Page 10 of 18 council for regulating the distance education programmes in the country. Hence, the Petitioner has not committed any misconduct or deviated and violated any Rule of Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, as the internal circular dated 22.02.2008 under Annexure-1 clearly spells out that the departmental candidates who were in possession of diploma qualifications obtained from recognized institute having Government/AICTE/SCTE recognition may apply for the post of Assistant Foreman (Tr) and the format of application is a part of the internal circular.

(xxvii) It is submitted that the candidates who applied for the post of Assistant Foreman (Tr) had taken permission from the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited to pursue their diploma education through distance education mode under the Directorate of Distance Education, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan and after completion of their course, they submitted the technical qualification certificates for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman (Tr). Hence the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Opposite Party No.1 is estopped to challenge the validity of the said certificates on the ground of non-recognition by AICTE/SCTE.

(xxviii) In the Appeal Memo the Appellant-Petitioner took the specific ground that he has only certified the particulars having cross checked the same with the documents in the service record of the candidates and handed over the same to the Personnel Manager, Bharatpur OCP who was his reporting officer in the Unit and that the onus of verifying the recognition of the institute lies with the Controlling Officer / Area

10

Page 11 of 18

Personnel Manager and the Area Personnel Manager having been satisfied with the forms forwarded the same to the MCL, Head Quarters for doing the needful at their end. It is also submitted that he had merely certified the particulars having checked /verified the same from the service record of the candidates as per the requirement of the format supplied by MCL HQ. The Petitioner has further submitted that employees who have completed Diploma in Distance Education mode (Lateral Entry i.e. 2 years Course) were also given promotion on earlier occasions and the Company has not suffered any loss in the present case as the applicants were not given the benefit of promotion.

(xxix) The Appellate Authority-cum-CMD, CIL (OP No.2) took up the matter for consideration and finally vide order dated 12.12.2017 decided that the minor penalty of "Censure" imposed on the Petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct by him and as such disposed of the Appeal with an observation that there is no need to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on the Petitioner.

(xxx) Hence, this Writ Petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) It is submitted that the last date of submission of application was on 10.3.2008. After receipt of applications from the interested employees on 9.3.2008 and 10.3.2008, the Personal Manager of the Bharatpur area

11

Page 12 of 18 (Petitioner) forwarded the applications to the Area Personal Manager and on 11.3.2008, the Area Personal Manager duly forwarded the said applications to the Head Office of MCL, without verification of the legitimacy of the documents in a mechanical manner. Both the officers did not scrutinize the applications to see whether the applicants are fulfilling the qualifying norms or not.

(ii) It is submitted that the Petitioner forwarded/certified the applications of seventeen candidates of the Bharatpur OCP, Bharatpur area without verifying whether the candidates have completed 3 years course of Diploma qualification and whether the Diploma Certificates issued by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) is a recognized institute of having Govt./AICTE/SCTE recognition as per the internal circular.

(iii) It is submitted that on 27.4.2008 the written test was conducted at the Head Quarter of MCL on 29.5.2008 the General Manager (P&IR) issued letter to candidates for attending the viva-voce test on 17.6.2008 at 10 a.m. in the DPS Conference Hall, 2^ndFloor, Corporate Office of MCL on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

(iv) It is submitted that the unsuccessful candidates filed a complaint before the Opp. Parties stating that some of the candidates are not having Diploma Certificate duly recognized by Govt./AICTE/SCTE. Further, their Diploma are of 2 years course being lateral entrants and not 3years Diploma Certificate/course as required. They had also approached this Court in terms of W.P.(C) No.15725 of 2008.

12

Page 13 of 18

(v) It is submitted that on receipt of such complaint, the Chief Vigilance Officer, MCL started investigation. On 11.2.2009 the Chief Vigilance Officer issued a letter to the petitioner in respect of certifying the application of non-recognized Diploma Certificate Holders. In the said letter it was stated that the Sr. Personnel Officer (Petitioner) certified the application of seventeen candidates without verifying the genuineness of Diploma Certificates of JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Pratap Nagar, Udaypur, Rajasthan which is not recognized by AICTE.

(vi) It is submitted that on 16.4.2009 the Central Vigilance Commission, Govt. of India, issued an office memorandum to the MCL directing to initiate minor penalty proceeding against the 19 candidates including the petitioner with a view to impose penalty other than "Censure".

(vii) It is submitted that on 27.6.2009, the Opp. Party No.1 relying upon the aforesaid office memorandum proposed to take action against the petitioner under Rule-31 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of the Coal India Ltd. and, accordingly, the Petitioner was called to show cause within a period of 10 days failing which it would be presumed that he has no representation/reply to make and order as deemed appropriate would be liable to be passed against him ex-parte.

(viii) It is submitted that the Court vide judgment dated 18.8.2015 in W.P.(C) No.10267/2009 has directed the Disciplinary Authority to deal with the representations/show cause filed by the petitioners pursuant to the memorandum dated 27.6.2009 independent of the recommendation made by the Central Vigilance Commission and conclude the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of law.

13

Page 14 of 18

(ix) It is submitted that as per the Court order the Opposite Party No.1 took up the matter and the petitioner furnished his reply which was found unsatisfactory. On examination of the case the Opposite Party No.1 found that there was a dispute over the validity of Diploma Certificates issued by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University). Further, there were lapses on the part of the Petitioner with respect to certifying/forwarding of the application of the candidates without proper verification as mentioned in the circular vide

No.MCL/HQ/PD/IR/Seln-Asst.FM-08/5397 dated 22.2.2008 issued by the G.M (P&IR), MCL inviting application from the departmental candidates possessing 3 years Diploma qualification in Electrical/Mechanical/ Electronic & Auto Mechanical Engg. etc. for selection to the post of Asst. Foreman (Tr.).

(x) It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 also found that the disciplinary cases (under minor penalty proceedings of the CIL CDA Rules, 1978) were initiated against 20 officers including the Petitioner who were found involved in the case during the year 2009 & 2015. Out of them some of the personnel have already been imposed with minor penalty of "withholding one increment for one year without cumulative effect". However, the cases of the remaining five officers including the case of the present Petitioner could not be disposed of due to pending court cases and due to continuance of disciplinary proceedings. As such the Petitioner's case could not be considered for promotion to the higher post.

14

Page 15 of 18

(xi) It is submitted that the submission/representation made by the Petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances that the Petitioner has not been promoted for long which in itself was a punishment, and keeping in view of the order of this Court, the undersigned after due application of mind, being the disciplinary authority (Opposite Party No.1) in accordance with the powers conferred under the CDA Rules, 1978 of CIL vide office order dated 29.3.2016 imposed minor penalty of "Censure" to the petitioner.

(xii) Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, accordingly, prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

III. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard the Parties in detail and perused all materials placed on record. It is a fact that the final date for submission of applications was March 10, 2008. On March 9 and March 10, 2008, the Personal Manager of the Bharatpur area (the Petitioner) received applications from interested employees. The Petitioner forwarded these applications to the Area Personal Manager, who then forwarded them to the Head Office of MCL on March 11, 2008. This forwarding process was done without verifying the legitimacy of the documents. Neither officer scrutinized the applications to ensure the applicants met the qualifying norms.

6. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the Petitioner certified and forwarded the applications of seventeen candidates from the Bharatpur OCP, Bharatpur area, without verifying whether the candidates had completed a three-year Diploma course and whether their Diploma

15

Page 16 of 18 Certificates from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) were recognized by the Government, AICTE, or SCTE as required by the internal circular.

7. A written test was conducted at the MCL Headquarters on April 27, 2008, followed by a letter issued on May 29, 2008, by the General Manager (P&IR) inviting candidates to attend a viva-voce test on June 17, 2008, at 10 a.m. in the DPS Conference Hall, 2nd Floor, Corporate Office of MCL.

8. Unsuccessful candidates filed a complaint alleging that some candidates did not possess properly recognized Diploma Certificates and that their diplomas were from a two-year course instead of the required three- year course. They also filed a petition in this Court vide W.P.(C) No.15725 of 2008.

9. Following the complaint, the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of MCL initiated an investigation. On February 11, 2009, the CVO issued a letter to the Petitioner regarding the certification of applications with non- recognized Diploma Certificates. The letter stated that the Petitioner had certified the applications of seventeen candidates without verifying the genuineness of their diplomas from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, which is not recognized by AICTE.

10. On April 16, 2009, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) issued an office memorandum directing MCL to initiate minor penalty proceedings against nineteen candidates, including the petitioner, with the aim of imposing penalties other than "Censure."

16

Page 17 of 18

11. On June 27, 2009, Opposite Party No. 1 proposed to take action against the petitioner under Rule-31 of the Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal Rules, 1978, of Coal India Ltd. The Petitioner was given ten days to show cause, failing which an ex-parte order would be issued.

12. In a judgment dated August 18, 2015, in W.P.(C) No.10267/2009, the Court directed the Disciplinary Authority to handle the representations and show cause filed by the petitioners independently of the CVC's recommendation and to conclude the proceedings according to the law.

13. Following the court order, Opposite Party No. 1 reviewed the matter. The Petitioner's reply was found unsatisfactory, as there were issues with the validity of the Diploma Certificates from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. Additionally, the petitioner had failed to properly verify the applications as required by the circular dated February 22, 2008, issued by the G.M (P&IR), MCL, which called for applications from departmental candidates with a three-year Diploma qualification in various engineering disciplines for the position of Assistant Foreman (Tr.).

14. The disciplinary cases (under minor penalty proceedings of the CIL CDA Rules, 1978) involved twenty officers, including the Petitioner, during 2009 and 2015. Some personnel had already been penalized with

"withholding one increment for one year without cumulative effect."

However, the cases of five officers, including the Petitioner, remained unresolved due to pending court cases and ongoing disciplinary proceedings, preventing their consideration for promotion.

17

Page 18 of 18

15. Considering the Petitioner's prolonged lack of promotion, which itself was a form of punishment, and in view of this Court's order, Opposite Party No.1, the disciplinary authority, imposed a minor penalty of

"Censure" on the Petitioner on March 29, 2016, under the CDA Rules, 1978, of CIL.

16. Therefore, this Court does not deem it necessary to accede to the submission of the Petitioner. With respect to the aforesaid discussion and factual analysis, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner.

17. This Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31^st July., 2024/

18