BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS. versus BABULAL AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 05-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' • 
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BABULAL AND ANR. ETC. 
AUGUST 5, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Common Coal Cadre, 1974: 
Rule 12.4( 1 )( c }-Tenni11atio11-Accide11t in coal mine-Serious injuries 
C 
to and loss of lives of minors-Report of fact finding committee indicating 
that there was dereliction of duty 011 the pa1t of Senior Mining Engineer and 
Manager. On charge of dereliction of duty their services were tenninated by 
the Company exercising power under the Rule-Held, the Rule having been 
stntck down as violative of A1ticle 14 of the Constitution, was never in vogue D 
to invoke the exercise of power by the Company-When charge of de1i/iction 
of duty was iniputed to the respondents, it was necessary to hold an inquiry 
giving an opp01tu11ity to them-Appellalll should hold an inquiry giving 
reasonable opponunity to the respondents in accordance with law-Delin-
quent would be dee1ned to be under suspension and entitled to the subsistence 
allowance pending inquiry . 
. G.P. Lalv. Coal India Ltd., C.A. No. 3673of1988decided by Supreme 
Court on 24.11.1994; relied on. 
Managing Director, ECJL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kamukar and 
Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 727, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10866 of 
1996 Etc. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.95 of the Calcutta High 
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1548 of 1990. 
G 
Anip Sachthey, C.D. Singh and H. Munshi for the Appellants. 
H.L. Agarwal and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
289 
H 
290 
SUl'REMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 
250/92. Admitted position is that the respondent Babula! was Senior Min-
ing 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 
C seriously injured. It is the case of the appellant that both the first respon-
dents were not present at the site nor had they taken necessary safety 
precautions to aver accident to the miners. A fact finding Committee can1e 
to be appointed to find out the cause for the death of the five and injury 
to two miners. The report dated July l, 1989 appears to have put it 
p Jintedly that there was dereliction of the duty on the part of the respon-
D dents 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 : 
E 
F 
n12.4. Tennination 
(i) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the contract of appoint-
ment of the executive Cadre employee may be terminated other-
wise than on disciplinary grounds : 
(a) ·········································· 
(b) ......................................... . 
(c) With three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof on confirma-
tion in the service, on either side.
11 
G 
On the basis thereof, the service of both the first respondents came 
to be terminated. It is not in dispute that this Court in C.A. No. 3673 of 
1988 titled G.P. Lal v. 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. 
H 
The question then is : what would be the position of the respondents? 
BHARATCOKINGCOALLID.v. BABULAL 
291 
It is not far to seek that when charge of dereliction of duty was imputed A 
to both the first respondents, it was necessary to hold an enquiry to give 
an opportunity to them before laking any disciplinary action for the alleged 
dereli~tion of the duly. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellant should 
hold an enquiry against both the first respondents giving reasonable oppor-
tunity to them according lo the rule. Constitution Bench rendered the B 
decision in Managing Directm; ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kamukar 
and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727 h<.d 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 C 
completed within six mon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.