Jharkhand High Court
Chandeshwar Singh vs The Coal India Limited on 12 November, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:33725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2629 of 2021
-----
Chandeshwar Singh, S/o Late Kesho Singh, R/o B-204, Gopal Dham
Apartment, Morabadi, P.O. and P.S. Bariyatu, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The Coal India Limited, having its office at Coal Bhawan, Premises
No.04 MAR, Plot No. AF-III, Action Area-1A, New Town, Rajarhat,
P.O. and P.S. New Town, District Kolkata, West Bengal
2. The Chairman, Coal India Limited, -having its office at Coal
Bhawan, Premises No.04 MAR, Plot No. AF-IIl, Action Area-1A,
New Town, Rajarhat, P.O. and P.S. New Town, District Kolkata,
West Bengal.
3. The Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga
House, P.O. and P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi
4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited,
having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O, and P.S. Kanke, District
Ranchi. ... Respondent(s).
PRESENT
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjendra Krishna, Advocate
: Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate
For the Resp-CCL : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
.........
ORDER
Reserved On 17.09.2025 Pronounced On 12 /11/2025
21/ 17.09.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for
the following reliefs:-
a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 19.01.2021
as contained in Memo No. CCL / VIG / RDA-08 / 19 / 20-21 / 1841,
issued by the respondent no.4 whereby and whereunder major penalty of
"Reduction of one stage lower for a period of one year in time scale
2025:JHHC:33725
starting from 01.01.2021 without cumulative effect" has been imposed
upon the petitioner.
b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), specifically a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the appellate order dated
10.05.2021 as contained in Memo No. CIL/ GM / (P) / Appeal /21/708 /
AA/ 303, issued by the respondent no.1, wherein the appellate authority
has been pleased to uphold the penalty of "Reduction of one stage lower for
a period of one year in time Scale starting from 01.01.2021 without
cumulative effect" imposed by the CMD, CCL /DA, vide order no. CCL /
VIL / RDA-68 / 19 /20-21/1841, dated 19.01.2021.
c) During the pendency of the case, be further pleased to direct the
respondents to keep one seat vacant for his promotion from E-6 to E-7, in
case this writ petitioner is allowed and accordingly grant him Promotion
with effect from the date on which the other persons who had cleared the
Departmental Promotion Committee held from 03.09.2019 to 09.09.2019,
were granted promotion and in which the petitioner was also found eligible
for promotion.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Executive Trainee on
01.11.1991 and is currently serving as a Senior Manager (Material
Management) at Darbhanga House, Ranchi. In 2018, while posted at
Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), Hazaribag, a vigilance
investigation was initiated in relation to 65 files for the period
between January 2016 to August 2019. During this period, the
petitioner was posted at Hazaribag area. A Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) meeting was held between 03.09.2019 to
09.09.2019 for promoting employees from E-6 to E-7 grade. The
petitioner was found eligible for promotion. However, just one day
before the promotion list was released, a charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner on 25.09.2019, even though his name was reflected in
the seniority list. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge
sheet on 16.10.2019, but the same was not accepted by the
Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after a proper
inquiry, issued a memo on 19.01.2021, imposing penalty on the
petitioner by reducing his pay by one stage for one year. The
2025:JHHC:33725
petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Respondent
No. 2, but his appeal was rejected on 10.05.2021, and the penalty was
upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an internal
inquiry was held against the petitioner and none of the charges
against the petitioner were proved. He further contended that the
Disciplinary Authority disagreed with this report and without
giving any clear reasons imposed penalty reducing the petitioner's
salary by one stage for one year which led to the petitioner being
denied a well-deserved promotion. He also submitted that the
punishment was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, citing
various misconduct, but no evidence was presented to support the
claim of misconduct. He further argued that no proper reasoning
was provided by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate
Authority also failed to give explanation for rejecting the petitioner's
defense while upholding.
4. The learned counsel for respondents-CCL contended that the
departmental inquiry was conducted fairly and impartially under
the rules of Coal India Limited. He further contended that the
Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty based on
evidence, and the Appellate Authority reviewed the punishment
order thoroughly, addressing each point raised by the petitioner in
the detailed and reasoned order dated 10.05.2021. He also argued
that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence or documents to
prove his innocence and the claims made by him are baseless and
without merit. He argued that the scope of interference is very less
in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as
this Court is not the Appellate Court. He relies on several judgments
on this issue.
2025:JHHC:33725
5. The petitioner is an employee of Central Coalfields Limited. A
Departmental Chargesheet was issued to him. The article of charge
is under two heads, which are as follows: -
ARTICLE - I
Shri Chandeshwar Singh, while posted as Sr. Manager (Material
Management) and functioning as Staff Officer (MM-Purchase),
Hazaribagh Area, CCL during the period from 2016 to 2019,
committed gross irregularities in matters of procurement of
materials inasmuch as he did prepare comprehensive and
consolidated proposals for procurement of same/ similar type of
materials for keeping the value of each lender below Rs. two lakhs to
resort to manual tenders and avoid the e- procurement procedure.
ARTICLE - II
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the
aforesaid office, said Shri Chandeshwar Singh, committed further
gross irregularities in the matter of procurement of materials
inasmuch as in gross violation of the revised e-procurement
guidelines effective from 15.01.2016, which required all tenders
irrespective of its value to be evaluated in accordance with e-
procurement procedure approved by CIL Board, he repeatedly
invited tenders for value less than 2 Lakhs in manual mode and
uploaded it on the CCL's website, a procedure which was less
transparent and had scope for human intervention.
The above acts of omission and commission on the part of Sri
Chandeshwar Singh, besides amounting to non-fulfillment of duties
and responsibilities under Rules 4.1(i), 4.1(ii) & 4.6 of the Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal rules, 1978 of CIL, (amended upto July,
2006) also tantamounts to misconduct in terms of Rules 5.0(5),
5.0(9) & 5.26 of the said Rules.
6. Detail imputation was also served upon him giving details of
the tender description, value and dates when procurement were
made. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that charge is that the
petitioner avoided e-procurement procedure and he did not prepare
a consolidated and comprehensive tender, rather bifurcated the
tender, which was against the rule of the Company.
7. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner
and an enquiry report was furnished. During the enquiry, oral
evidence was recorded and documents were also exhibited. Full
opportunity was given to the delinquent employee to defend
2025:JHHC:33725
himself. In the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer, so far as it relates
to charge No.1, held that since the petitioner is not a technical man,
he cannot be held responsible for clubbing or splitting of the tender.
So far as charge No.2 is concerned, he also exonerated the petitioner.
Thus, in respect of both the charges, petitioner was exonerated.
8. The Disciplinary Authority differed with the enquiry report. A
notice was served to the petitioner annexing a copy of the enquiry
report. The said notice clearly points out the ground why the
Disciplinary Authority is differing with the finding of the enquiry
report. The Disciplinary Authority opined that there was no
ambiguity in the procurement guidelines and the petitioner has
resorted to manual mode of procuring material deviating from the
guidelines, which itself is a misconduct. I find that the notice, which
was given to the petitioner, differing with the enquiry report is
extensive. Petitioner gave a reply. Considering the said reply, the
impugned order of punishment was passed reducing the scale of
pay of the petitioner by one stage lower for one year in the time
scale without any cumulative effect. As stated by the counsel, this
punishment is minor in nature.
9. The scope of interference in the Departmental Proceeding is
limited while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 at
paragraphs 12 and 13 has held as under:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note
that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the
enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture
into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
2025:JHHC:33725
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that
behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the
proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair
conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits
of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and
capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such
conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible
evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has
been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be
based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience."
10. The law is also quite clear on the issue of differing with the
enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority can differ with the
enquiry report and proceed to punish the delinquent employee, but
when the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the enquiry report,
the reasons thereof should be spelt out and an opportunity should
be given to the delinquent employee to meet the differences.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National
Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 at paragraph
19 has held as under:-
"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of
natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof,
whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on
any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge,
it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the
2025:JHHC:33725
delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings.
The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be
conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry
officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed,
require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a
penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the
charges framed against the officer."
12. In the instant case, I find that the Disciplinary Authority
differed with the enquiry report and the grounds have also been
mentioned in the notice, which was served upon the petitioner.
Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, thus,
there is no violation of principles of natural justice nor any
procedure has been violated. After considering the overall aspects
and the documents, the Disciplinary Authority arrived at a
conclusion that the petitioner has deviated from the well settled
norms and circulars and guidelines of the company by not issuing
e-tender. This Court cannot reappraise the entire issue afresh, sitting
as an Appellate Authority. Once the Disciplinary Authority had
arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had committed a
misconduct, this Court cannot reappraise the same and substitute its
own views. Further, after going through the records, I find that
based on the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the
reasonings therein, the impugned order cannot be said to be
perverse. A minor deviation here and there cannot be a ground to
reappraise the reasoning of the Disciplinary Authority and overturn
the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 at
paragraphs 14 and 15 has held as under:-
"14. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon
the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan
Tewari [Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 :
(2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 335] , wherein this Court held that if the disciplinary
2025:JHHC:33725
authority records a finding that is not supported by any evidence
whatsoever or a finding which is unreasonably arrived at, the writ court
could interfere with the finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not
find that even on touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court
could interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is
not the case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding
that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with only on
the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Department.
The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a case of no evidence. The
inquiry officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding that the
respondent is guilty of misconduct.
15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer
and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the State
Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been accepted by
the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the
Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts
recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate
authority. We may notice that the said judgment has not noticed the larger
Bench judgments in S. Sree Rama Rao [State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao,
AIR 1963 SC 1723] and B.C. Chaturvedi [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India,
(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] as mentioned above. Therefore, the
orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court suffer from patent
illegality and thus cannot be sustained in law."
13. Thus, considering what has been held above, I find no error in
the impugned order. Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and it is well within his
jurisdiction to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Further, the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority is neither
perverse nor imprudent. This writ petition thus is, accordingly,
dismissed as no ground is made out to interfere with the
punishment order.
14. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 12 /11/ 2025
R.S.
A.F.R.
