JUDGMENT
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. This appeal under Clause (1) of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th July, 1998 passed in CWJC No 2052/1993 (R), whereby the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the order dated 12.2.1993 passed by the Director of Ministry of Coal and dismissed the writ petition.
2. The petitioner/appellant was in the service of the respondents at the relevant time and was working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Assansol. In 1978, a memorandum of charges was served upon him and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The charges inter alia was that the petitioner while in Assansol office from 1974 onwards aided and abetted identification of one person posing himself to be Shri Sripat Chamar and a wrong person one H.P. Rajak withdrew the provident fund of Sripat Chamar with the help of the petitioner. In the disciplinary proceeding, the Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund was appointed as Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry. After conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges and the inquiry report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and after giving him a show-cause for the purpose of punishment and reasonable opportunity of hearing a final order was passed imposing punishment to the petitioner by reducing him to the rank of Lower Division Clerk.
3. The petitioner/appellant challenged the aforesaid order by filing CWJC No. 2438/88 (R). The learned single Judge held that the punishment awarded by the then Commissioner was tainted with bias and prejudice for the reason that he was a witness in the departmental enquiry. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that since Mr. Moiz was still holding the post of Commissioner another competent officer be appointed for considering the enquiry report and for passing an appropriate order. It appears that in compliance of the said direction, the respondents appointed the Director, Ministry of Coal as disciplinary authority who considered the enquiry report and awarded punishment for compulsory retirement. The petitioner again challenged the aforesaid order of punishment of compulsory retirement by filing the aforementioned writ petition being CWJC No. 2052/1993 (R). The learned single Judge after holding that the appointment of Director as disciplinary authority is not illegal or against the rules and regulations, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
4. Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground inter alia that the learned single Judge has not correctly appreciated the point raised by the petitioner. Mr. Sinha, firstly submitted that the appointment of Director, Ministry of Coal as disciplinary authority is in contravention of Regulation 32 (3) of Regulation of 1964. According to the learned counsel the disciplinary authority has considered a document i.e. statement of “Rajak,” which was not ever supplied to the petitioner and thereby order of punishment is violative of principles of natural justice.
5. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that on the question of competency of the Director, Ministry of Coal to act as a disciplinary authority, learned single Judge held as under.
“The only grievance of the petitioner now is that in the earlier writ application that is CWJC 2438/88R decided by a single Judge of this Court, a direction was given that as the disciplinary authority under Regulation was the Commissioner he is not supposed to take any decision as he had figured as a witness in the departmental enquiry and so a direction was given for appointment of other disciplinary authority and thus, it was contended that in the instant case Director of Ministry of Coal that is respondent No. 2 who was appointed as disciplinary authority who considered the enquiry report and awarded punishment for compulsory retirement. This Director is a foreign Officer not connected with the provident fund organization. In that view of the matter, the Government is not expected to appoint such person as disciplinary authority for the purpose of enquiry and punishment.
“Moreover Regulation also indicates that the Central Government has a right to appoint any person as disciplinary authority. If that is so, the Central Government may appoint any other authority to be a disciplinary authority, but such person should not be lower in rank than the Commissioner who was initially a disciplinary authority and appointing authority. It is the admitted case that the Director is not lower in rank to the Commissioner and moreover he is an officer of the same Ministry and the Regulation also empowers the Central Government for such appointment. Above all the order of the Court in such a situation was there for appointment of other disciplinary authority because the then Commissioner was not expected to deal with the matter. So in such a situation, the Director was competent to be appointed as a disciplinary authority and he will be deemed to be an appointing authority for the purpose of enquiry and punishment under the rules. Accordingly the appointment of Director is not suffering from any infirmity. If that is so, the Director being the appointing authority for the purpose of this very proceeding disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer for the reason assigned and after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner has passed an order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner which is not suffering from any infirmity.”
6. On the question of consideration of the statement of Mr. H.P. Rajak, learned single Judge rightly held that the writ Court is not supposed to appreciate the entire evidence and probe into the matter whether there was satisfactory or overwhelming evidence in the departmental enquiry to justify the finding. The only thing to be seen is that whether the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with the rules and after giving opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee.
7. Besides the above, admittedly the Director of Coal Mines was the superior authority as defined in Regulation 32 (2) of the Regulations. It further appears that the disciplinary authority so appointed by the Central Government after appraisal of the entire evidence recorded a conclusive finding by passing a reasoned order for imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned single Judge.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
Hari Shankar Prasad, J.
I agree.