JUDGMENT
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Banerjea, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. When the case was taken up, Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that an amendment application has been filed on 13.9.1999 wherein he has made a prayer for quashing the subsequent order dated 11.3.1999 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Since this matter is being taken up finally, Mr. Banerjea has no objection to the aforementioned prayer for allowing the amendment application. Accordingly the amendment application is allowed and the same is taken up for hearing alongwith the writ application.
3. The petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for quashing of Annexure 5, which is an order dated 3.9.1998 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder he has been reduced to the initial stage in the same time scale of pay for a period of two years without any future effect. The petitioner has also made a prayer that the respondents be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner which, according to him, has been arbitrarily withheld in the Grade of M-2.
4. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Junior Executive in December 1973, whereafter he was given different promotions on various dates, the last of which was in June 1992 when he was promoted to the E-6 Grade which is presently known as M-l Grade. At paragraph 6, the petitioner has categorically stated that his appointing authority is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited and that his cadre is also maintained at the level of the apex Company, i.e., Coal India Limited. This paragraph has not been denied by the respondents, inasmuch as at paragraph 7 it has merely been stated that these statements are matters of record and as such they require no comments. Paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit is therefore quoted below :
“7. That with reference to the statement made in para 3 to 6 of the writ application I say and submit that the same are matters of record and as such no comment is required to be furnished.”
5. While the petitioner was posted in Madhya Pradesh in the Western Coalfields Limited, a charge-sheet was issued by the respondent No. 2 on 20.11.1996 in relation to some charges for the period 1987 to 8.5.1993 while he was working as Manager in the concerned colliery. The petitioner showed cause vide Annexure 2 and out of the four charges, three were proved against him and in one charge, nothing could be found against the petitioner.
6. Thereafter on 3.9.1998 the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order, by which he inflicted the punishment indicated above. According to the petitioner, the order is wholly without jurisdiction and totally void inasmuch only the respondent No. 1 was competent to pass the order of punishment and not the respondent No. 2 because the appointing authority of the petitioner is the respondent No. 1 and the cadre of the petitioner is also controlled at the level of the apex Company, Mr. Saurabh Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 pertaining to the Coal India Limited executives. The schedule in Rule 27.0 also shows that for Officers in the Grade of E-1 to M-3 posted in Coal India Limited or in all its subsidiary companies, the disciplinary authority is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited who is competent to inflict punishments upon such officers. At paragraph 4 of the writ application, the petitioner has also stated that in June 1992 he was promoted to the E-6 grade which, at present is known as M-1 Grade. That paragraph, i.e., paragraph 4 of the writ application has again been replied at paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit and it merely states that these are matters of record and require no comments. The fact that the petitioner is an Officer in the M-1 Grade and the fact that the only authority competent to issue an order of punishment is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited has not been denied by the respondents. The impugned order, therefore, obviously is an order which has been passed without any authority.
7. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, however, submits that upon perusal of the amendment application, it will be evident that the petitioner had filed an appeal for waiver of the penalty and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited has confirmed that penalty and therefore it amounts to upholding and/or giving the seal of approval to the order passed by the respondent No. 2. This Court does not agree with the argument of Mr. Banerjea. When the first order was illegal and without jurisdiction, the same should not have been approved mechanically because that would amount to ratifying an illegal order.
8. For the reasons stated above, writ application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. However, liberty is given to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
9. After the aforementioned order had been dictated, Mr. Saurabh Arun prayed that the relief in relation to his promotion be also granted.
10. So far as the matter relating to promotion is concerned, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the concerned appropriate authority and make a prayer for consideration of his promotion. If, he does so, the appropriate authority will deal with the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.