CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., COAL INDIA LTD., & ORS. versus ANANTA SAHA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 44 · Decided: 06-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 5 S.C.R. 44 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., COAL INDIA LTD., & ORS. 
v. 
ANANTA SAHA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2958 of 2011) 
APRIL 6, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S.CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Disciplinary inquiry - Medical Officer appointed by the 
principal company and posted in subsidiary company -
Complaint against, for abusing and attempting to assault his 
senior, the Chief Medical Officer, and beating others who tried 
to intervene - Punishment of dismissal from service, awarded 
o by CMD of subsidiary company - Set aside by High Court 
holding that it was not passed by the competent autt1ority -
Liberty given to employers to initiate the proceedings de novo 
- Proceedings held again, but on the basis of the earlier 
charge-sheet - HELD: High Court erred in holding that CMD 
E 
of the subsidiary company was not competent to initiate the 
proceedings - However, since the entire previous proceedings 
including the charge-sheet issued earlier stood quashed, 
inquiry could not have been initiated without giving a fresh 
charge-sheet - There was no proper initiation of disciplinary 
proceedings after the first round of litigation and, as such, all 
F 
the consequential proceedings stood vitiated - In case the 
employers choose to hold a fresh inquiry, they would reinstate . 
the delinquent - All the entitlements of the delinquent would 
be determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with 
law - Coal India Executives (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) 
G 
Rules 1978 - rr. 27 and 28 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 311 -
Maxim "sub/ato fundamento cadit opusn -
Applicability of - Administrative Law - Bias. 
Disciplinary inquiry - Revival of - HELD: The order of 
H 
44 
CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., COAL INDIA LTD., & ORS. v. 
45 
ANANTA SAHA & ORS. 
revival reveals that the note prepared by the OSD was merely 
A 
signed by the disciplinary authority in a routine manner -
There is nothing on record to show that the disciplinary 
authority put its signature after applying its mind - Therefore, 
it cannot be said that the proceedings had been properly 
revived - The order of revival could not be sufficient to initiate 
B 
any disciplinary proceedings. 
Disciplinary inquiry - Order of dismissal - Requirement 
of a speaking order - HELD: An order of dismissal from 
service passed against a delinquent and the proceedings 
C 
held against such a public servant under the statutory rule to 
determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against 
him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings - The 
authority has to give reasons for initiation of the inquiry and 
conclusion thereof. 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s. 114, Illustration (f) - Presumption as to service of 
notice - Disciplinary inquiry - Notice sent to delinquent by 
registered post -
Delinquent not participating in the 
E 
proceedings and contending that notices were not served 
upon him in accordance with law :- HELD: The second show 
cause notice and the copy of the inquiry report had been sent 
to him under registered post -
Therefore, there is a 
presumption in law, particularly, uls 27 of the General Clauses 
F 
Act, 1897 and s.114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act that 
the addressee has received the materials sent by post -
General Clauses Act, 1897 - s.27. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226 - Writ petition challenging disciplinary inquiry 
and dismissal order - Statutory appeal against order of 
dismissal pending - HELD: Writ petition could not have been 
proceeded with and heard on merits when statutory appeal 
G 
H 
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
was pending - Department also proceeded with the case 
without any sense of responsibility, as subsequent to 
dismissal of writ petition and writ appeal by High Court, the 
statutory appeal filed by delinquent after 15 months of the 
order of punishment was entertained though the /imitation 
B prescribed under the Rules was 30 days and the appeal was 
dismissed on merits without dealing with the issue of limitation 
- Coal India Executives (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) 
Rules, 1978 - Appeal - Limitation. 
c 
Administretive Law: 
Bias - Held: The presumption is in favour of bonafides 
of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material - In 
the instant case, though in respect of the a/legation of bias I 
prejudice ma/afides, a ground has been taken in the writ . 
D petition before the High Court, but no material on record could 
be pointed out to substantiate th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.