05 August 1996
Supreme Court
Download

BHARAT COKING COAL Vs BABULAL

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-010866-010866 / 1996
Diary number: 78798 / 1996
Advocates: ANIP SACHTHEY Vs


1

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."

2

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.