R. Vijaya Jeevanand vs Coal India Limited ( A Govt. Of India ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2609 Bom

Bombay High Court

R. Vijaya Jeevanand vs Coal India Limited ( A Govt. Of India ... on 14 February, 2025

Author: Avinash G. Gharote

Bench: Avinash G. Gharote

2025:BHC-NAG:1495-DB


                                                                WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt
                                                    1

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                     WRIT PETITION NO.8300/2022

                   PETITIONER :         R. Vijaya Jeevanand, aged 54 years,
                                        Occ. Sr. Manager Personnel (Retired),
                                        WCL, Nagpur, r/o Pioneer Green Valley, flat
                                        No.101, type-11 A-E, Opp. Afzal Bakery,
                                        Aakar Nagar, Katol Road, Nagpur 440013.

                                                ...VERSUS...
                   RESPONDENTS :         1. Coal India Limited (a Govt. of India
                                            Enterprise), Coal Bhawan Premise No.04,
                                            MAR, Plot No.AF-III, Action Area-1A,
                                            New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkatta- 700 156,
                                            (W.B.) through its CMD, CIL.
                                        2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
                                           WCL, Coal Estate, Civil Lines,
                                           Nagpur 440 001.
                                        Mr. M. M. Sudame, Sr. Advocate a/b Mr. A.M. Sudame,
                                        Advocate for petitioner
                                        Mr. O.A. Ghare, Advocate for respondents
                                                                                                5
                   CORAM :                                     AVINASH G. GHAROTE
                                                                          AND
                                                               ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
                   Date of reserving the judgment              10/02/2025
                   Date of pronouncing the judgment            14/02/2025




                  ORAL JUDGMENT :         (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally 10

with the consent of the learned Counsels for the respective parties.

WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

2. The petitioner was selected and appointed as a Welfare

Officer (Trainee) E-1 Grade, and had joined on 16/08/1995, with the

respondent No.2. The petitioner, who later on was selected for the

post of Senior Manager (Personnel) in Grade E-6, faced a

departmental enquiry on the charge that during her period of 5

appointment as Manager (P) in the IR Department of WCL HQ, when

she was assigned the job of employment to dependent and

Manpower, being in charge of employment to dependent cases and

Manpower of WCL she failed to take cognizance of posting orders in

respect of new appointees in WCL (pg.55). This was in respect of the 10

appointment orders of three persons namely Mr. Anup Ramdas Dhote

and Mr. Srinivas Gattaiah Thota dated 09/06/2016 (pg.86) for being

appointed in the dependent category and posted in underground

mine in Pathakheda area and specifically at Tawa Sub-Division and

Mr. Mohan Ramavatar Kewat dated 25/02/2016 (pg.88). These 15

appointment orders were later on found to be forged, on the basis of

which the Disciplinary Enquiry was commenced against the petitioner

and several other persons on the above charge, in which they having

been found to be guilty, a penalty of reduction of one stage lower in a

time scale of pay for a period of one year which will not operate to 20

postpone her increments was imposed, vide order dated 13/10/2020 WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

(pg.195). A departmental appeal filed to the Appellate Authority

came to be rejected vide order dated 08/09/2022 (pg. 201) on the

ground that though the posting orders were received on 27/02/2016,

24/05/2016 and 09/06/2016, the petitioner had failed to verify the

same and therefore, did not interfere in the punishment imposed, 5

which is being questioned in the present petition.

3. Mr. Sudame, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

contends that the forged appointment orders were never marked to

the petitioner for verification, on account of which, she having never

received the same, the question of holding the petitioner guilty of 10

failure to verify them, did not arise at all.

3.1. He invites our attention to the office order dated

08/01/2016 (pg.40) to contend that one Smt. Sugandhi Prakash

Sr. Manager (Per) posted in IR Department was assigned the work of

dealing with employment proposals of Pathakhera, Pench, Kanhan 15

areas, WCL HQ and its units which would indicate that the petitioner

was never assigned this work and though the petitioner by the same

order was assigned the work of dealing of employment proposals of

Ballarpur area amongst other areas, since the order specifically

assigned dealing of employment proposals of Pathakhera area to 20 WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

Smt. Sugandhi Prakash, the same stood excluded from the job

assignment of the petitioner, on account of which, she could not have

been held guilty.

3.2. It is also his contention that though the office order

dated 22/04/2016 (pg.41) assigned the job of employment to 5

dependent cases and change of posting to the petitioner, since the

petitioner was posted at the Head Quarter at Nagpur, she could not

be held responsible of any posting order received at Pathakhera, on

the basis of which, the abovenamed three persons came to be joined,

as there was no corresponding responsibility assigned to her to verify 10

the appointment/posting orders of these persons, nor were these

posting orders were ever marked to her for the purposes of

verification, due to which the finding of guilt, as against her, cannot

be sustained.

3.3. He further invites our attention to the enquiry report 15

dated 13/02/2020, and specifically the findings at para (H) (pg.185),

in relation to the petitioner, which state that the petitioner was the

dealing officer of employment to dependent cases and as such was

supposed to ensure that the employment shall be provided to the

genuine dependents as per the laid down provisions of the company 20 WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

and although there is no SOP till date for allowing new incumbents

in the company, but the petitioner was supposed to verify the posting

orders received from areas and to tally them with the sanction orders

issued from WCL HQ, with a view to avoid any employment by

fraudulent means, which she failed to do, to contend that in absence 5

of any SOP, which indicates a procedure for the petitioner to verify

the posting orders at the areas with the sanction orders at the HQ,

the petitioner could not be held to be guilty.

3.4. He further contends that the evidence led by the

respondent No.2 also does not indicate that the posting orders on the 10

basis of which the abovenamed three persons were appointed, were

ever marked to the petitioner for verification so as to lay the blame at

her doorstep. In support of this contention, he invites our attention to

the evidence of Shri Harish Gawali MW-05 (pg.102) Question Nos.3,

and 7 in Chief (pg.103) and Question No.2 in Re-examination 15

(pg.104) and the evidence of Shri R. K. Singh DW-02 question Nos.8,

14 and 15 (pg.112-113).

3.5. It is, therefore, his contention that the material on

record of the enquiry, does not establish the involvement or guilt of WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

the petitioner, on account of which, the punishment imposed cannot

be sustained.

4. Mr. Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondents, while

supporting the findings and punishment imposed, submits that the

petitioner being the overall incharge for grant of employment to 5

dependents and Manpower, was bound to verify the posting orders

with the record as maintained in the Head Quarters of the

respondent No.2, so that the fraudulent appointments and

consequently loss caused to the respondent No.2, could have been

avoided. According to the learned Counsel, this is a classic case of 10

dereliction of duty, for which the punishment imposed is very meager

and ought to be sustained. He further invites our attention to the

finding in the enquiry report dated 13/02/2020 (pg.185) to the

effect that copies of the fraudulent posting orders were addressed to

Senior Manager (P)/Manpower and since the petitioner was then 15

occupying this post, it was her responsibility to verify these

posting/appointment orders, and had this been done, by her, the

fraud would have immediately come to light. The petitioner,

according to him, in light of this finding, cannot escape from the

penalty imposed, which was rightly done. He further invites our 20

attention to the evidence of Shri R. K. Singh (pg.113) to contend that WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

the fraudulent orders were received in the department of the

petitioner, and being Senior Manager it was her duty to verify their

genuineness, which she failed to do. He further contends that merely

because there was no SOP at that time, that by itself, would not

absolve the petitioner of her duty to do so. The punishment imposed 5

therefore, according to him, is fully justified and the petition needs to

be dismissed with costs.

5. In order to bring home a finding of guilt to a Charged

Officer, it is necessary to see whether it has been established on

record that the concerned officer had failed to perform the duty 10

assigned to her. For this purpose, it would be necessary to find out

what was the nature of the job of the officer and whether the

concerned documents had reached such officer, so as to make it

obligatory upon such officer to undertake the job of verification, for

6. The office order dated 08/01/2016 (pg.40) indicates

that the petitioner had joined in the IR Department as Manager (Per)

and was assigned the job of dealing of employment proposals of

various areas, including Ballarpur area, in addition to which she was

required to do jobs as assigned to her. Since Pathakhera area fell in 20 WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

Ballarpur area, broadly speaking the petitioner could be said to be

assigned the job dealing with the employment proposals from that

area too. However, what is material to note is that the same office

order dated 08/01/2016 (pg.40) also assigns jobs to one

Smt. Sugandhi Prakash Sr. Manager (Per) of dealing of employment 5

proposals of Pathakhera, Pench, Kanhan Areas, WCL HQ and its units.

This would in fact indicate that the job of dealing with employment

proposals, for the Pathakhera area, stood excluded from the job

assignment of the petitioner, on the principle of specific excludes

general. It would thus be apparent that the job proposals of 10

Pathakhera area were not assigned to be dealt with by the petitioner.

7. The petitioner thereafter by the office order dated

22/04/2016 (pg.41), was assigned the job of dealing with

employment to dependent cases and change of posting, and was

8. The Article of charge framed against the petitioner

(pg.55) also records that during the relevant period the petitioner

was working as Manager (Per) in the IR Department of WCL and was

posted at WCL HQ and alleged that the petitioner failed to get the

above detailed fraudulent orders tallied with the sanction orders 20 WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

issued from WCL HQ and also failed to get them tallied with the

appointment letters issued in this regard from the Ballarpur areas.

Though the statement of imputation against the petitioner (pg.56)

records that at the relevant time the petitioner was assigned the job

of employment to dependent and manpower, however, there is no 5

office order, which assigns the job of manpower to the petitioner on

record or referred to in the report.

9. In the above context the evidence of Shri M.W.-5

Shri Harish Gawali, Chief Manager (Mining)/Vig. is material. Though

in this examination-in-chief, in answer to Question No.3, he states 10

that the concerned documents were sent to the Senior Manager

Manpower, WCL HQ, however, in cross-examination admits that the

dispatch registers do not indicate that the appointment orders were

received by the petitioner personally. Certain evidence in this regard

"M.W.-01- Shri Rajesh Nair - Examination-in-chief.

Q.4. Please Clarify that whether the copy of ME-01 has been given to Sr. Manager (MP), WCL (HQ) or not ?

Ans. As per distribution indicated in the order (ME-01) a copy has been marked to the Sr. Manager (MP), WCL (HQ). 20 Cross-Examination WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

Q.1. Please refer Q.3 of EIC in which you have stated that office order ME-01 has been distributed to nine officials. Kindly establish that all the copies under distribution has been sent and received by the concerned officials ?

Ans. From the Dispatch records it will be possible to confirm that 5 the copies of the order was distributed to the marked persons. Q.2. From the reply given at Q.1 it seems that you have not confirmed whether the letters under distribution have been actually sent to the officials concerned ?

Ans. As per existing system copy of letters issued are distributed to 10 all the people to whom the copies are marked. Hence based on this system I have stated that as per distribution entered in ME-01 the copy of the order has been distributed to the concerned persons.

Q.3. It seems that the reply given above is on assumption basis ? 15 Ans. Yes.

Re-Examination.

Q.1 Please refer Q.3 of cross-examination where you mentioned that it is on the assumption basis but don't you think that this particular letter i.e. ME-01 has been dispatched is to be confirmed 20 by the Dispatch Register from the Area ?

Ans. I agree that from record it has to be confirmed that the letter was dispatched as stated.

M.W-02- Shri S.J. Borkar - Cross-examination. 25 Q.1. ME-01 and ME-02 has been cited as examples to establish a system of confirmation of appointment order and sanction order. By citing these documents it is not learnt that these documents as marked have been received by the concerned executive. Is there any document which establishes that ME-01 & ME-02 has been 30 actually dispatched and received by the concerned executive/Charged Officer?

WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

Ans. I belong to a different Area and not having knowledge whether these documents have been received by the CO or not.

M.W.-03- Shri Kawadu M. Padwekar -Cross-examination. Q.1. ME-01 and ME-02 has been cited as examples to establish a 5 system of confirmation of appointment order and sanction order. By citing these documents it is not learnt that these documents as marked have been received by the concerned executive. Is there any document which establishes that ME-01 & ME-02 has been actually dispatched and received by the concerned 10 executive/Charged Officer?

Ans. I belong to Ballarpur Area and not having knowledge whether these documents have been received by the CO or not. Q.3. Do you know that in the year 2016 there were two personnel executives posted in the Manpower Department, WCL (HQ), 15 Nagpur, whose designations were Manager (MP) ? Ans. In the year 2016 sanction orders were sent to Sr. Manager (MP), WCL (HQ).

Q.6. How can you say that ME-01 & ME-02 were distributed/sent

Ans. I don't have the knowledge.

M.W. 05- Shri Harish Gawali - Examination-in-chief Q.1. Please give your introduction ?

Ans. My name is Harish Gawali, Chief Manager (Mining)/Vig. I 25 have been called as a witness in the case further I was also associated with preliminary verification of the instant case. Q.2. Kindly peruse the document ME-01 & ME-02 and state what this document is and who are the recipients of this document ? Ans. ME-01 is office order Ref. No.1564 dated 09.06.2016 issued 30 by APM, Pathakhera Area regarding posting of Shri Anup Ramdas WP 8300 of 2022- Judgment.odt

Dhote and Shri Srinivas Gattaiah Thota at Tawa Sub Area. The copy of this order is distributed to -

1) GM (IR), WCL, Nagpur

2) GM, Pathakhera/Ballarpur Area

4) Dy. GMF, WCL, Pathakhera Area

5) Sr. Manager (System), WCL, Pathakhera Area

6) Manager (VTC), WCL, Pathakhera Area

7) Concerned Employee.