2025:JHHC:14835 -: 1 :- W.P.(S) No. 3496 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3496 of 2019 ----- Satish Kumar Son of Dhananjay Rawani, resident of Village Padua Vitha, P.O. Kharkharee, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Bharat Coal Coking Ltd., through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. & District Dhanbad. 2. Director Personnel, Bharat Coal Coking Ltd., P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. & District Dhanbad. 3. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Coal Coking Ltd., Barora Area No.1, P.O. Barora, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad. 4. General Manager, B.C.C.L. Barora Area, P.O. Barora, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad. 5. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Bharat Coal Coking Ltd., Barora Area No. 1, P.O. Barora, P.S. Baghmara, District Dhanbad. 6. Project Officer, B.C.C.L. Phularitand Colliery, P.O.. Phularitand, P.S. Madhuban, District Dhanbad. 7. Senior Finance Officer, B.C.C.L. Madhuban Colliery. P.O. Madhuban, P.S. Kharkharee, District Dhanbad. … … Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate ---- O R D E R Reserved on: 17.03.2025 Pronounced On: 09.06.2025 11/ 09.06.2025 In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Office Order, as contained in Reference No. GM/AR-1/PD/2013 dated 07.02.2013 (Annexure 12) issued by respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder the alternative Forum of Appeal availed by the petitioner has been rejected and the impugned order of dismissal as contained in Office Order bearing Ref No. PHU / PO/ Dismissal/2012/289 dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure- 11) has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner has further consequently prayed for setting aside the order of penalty as contained in Ref No. PHU/PO/ Dismissal / 2012 / 289 dated 05.06.2012 issued by respondent No. 6 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the respondents. Petitioner has also prayed for reinstating the petitioner with immediate effect with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Underground General Mazdoor (Category-I) by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager of BCCL. He 2025:JHHC:14835 -: 2 :- W.P.(S) No. 3496 of 2019 was given employment as a dependent of late Dhananjay Rawani. The petitioner was later instructed orally to work as an Assistant Cashier at Madhuban Colliery. When the petitioner requested to be formally absorbed as the Cashier, the superiors devised a strategy to remove him from the post to avoid complications. The petitioner, fearing false charges, submitted a written representation requesting the respondents to issue appropriate orders in writing for withdrawal of his duties as Cashier. Petitioner was issued with memorandum of charges along with order of suspension vide letter No.50/II dated 15.06.2011. The petitioner submitted reply to the memorandum of charges on 21.06.2011. The respondents, vide office order No.434/2011 dated 21.06.2011, constituted a committee to break open the lock of cash cell and for handing over the documents and records to the cashier of Phularitand Colliery. Enquiry Officer was appointed vide letter No.501/2011 dated 30.06.2011 to conduct enquiry and submit report. The Enquiry Officer, vide letter No.1776/12 dated 05/11.01.2012 submitted Enquiry Report finding the charges against the petitioner to be proved. On 13.12.2011, a second show-cause notice was issued. The petitioner submitted his response to the second show-cause notice on 18.01.2012, wherein he denied the charges leveled against him. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority by letter bearing reference No. PHU/PO/ Dismissal/ 2012/ 289 dated 05.06.2012 awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a departmental appeal, which was also dismissed by order vide reference No. GM/AR-1/PD/2013 dated 07.02.2013. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that no subsistence allowance was paid, thus, he was prejudiced inasmuch as he could not defend himself in the Departmental Proceeding. If the subsistence allowance is not paid, it will be presumed that the petitioner could not defend himself in the proceeding. He further submitted that the Appellate Authority has not considered his defence and has mechanically passed an order without giving his reasoning or an independent finding. The documents presented were not proved by any witnesses, which is in violation of the law as enshrined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank & Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. Further, the management witness has stated that there was no loss to the company, that being so, charge of theft falls flat. The petitioner, who was given charge of cash book and cash, could not have orally handed over the keys and give charge 2025:JHHC:14835 -: 3 :- W.P.(S) No. 3496 of 2019 and admittedly, there was no written order to deposit the keys. He thus, argued that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. He lastly submitted that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat, as he was pursuing his claim for regularization. 4. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner should approach the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act for redressal of his grievances. The petitioner was dismissed in 2012, but the petitioner has filed this writ petition in 2019, thus, there is a huge delay. The propriety and the fairness of the enquiry cannot be looked into in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may, is the only appropriate authority to decide the propriety and fairness of the Departmental Proceeding, which has to be decided after leading evidences. Proportionality of the punishment can also be looked into by the Labour Court and not by this Court. He contended that the finding of fact cannot be set aside in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Based on the arguments of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short issue. The petitioner, in this writ petition has not only challenged the punishment order, but he has also challenged the appellate order. The appeal is a statutory appeal as provided under the Service Regulations of the respondent Company. When an appeal is filed by an employee, it is incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider all the points raised and deal with them and answer appropriately. Appellate Authority is also the last authority of facts. He can reconsider and reassess the facts. Responsibility of an Appellate Authority to dispose of an appeal with a reasoned order is of much higher degree. He has to consider all the aspects. The word ‘consider’ in the case of Departmental Appeal has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others versus A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530, wherein at paragraph 19 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - 19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear 2025:JHHC:14835 -: 4 :- W.P.(S) No. 3496 of 2019 connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order. (Vide Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. V. Santosh Kumar [(2006) 11 SCC 147 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 388] and Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2008) 4 SCC 144 : AIR 2008 SC 1771].) 7. Considering the aforesaid observation and guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I had gone through the appellate order. The appellate order is Annexure 12 to this writ petition. When I go through the appellate order, I find that the appellate order is in five paragraphs, which dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Authority has never dealt with the points raised by the petitioner. He has only held that a reply was given by the petitioner to the Authority; the Enquiry Officer had complied with the principles of natural justice; proper procedure was followed and the reply of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. In an unreasoned order without considering any aspect, which the petitioner had raised, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal. Thus, the appellate order could not withstand the test of reasonableness and cannot be said to be an appellate order in true sense. 8. Thus, I dispose of this writ petition by setting aside the Appellate Order vide Reference No. GM/AR-1/PD/2013 dated 07.02.2013 (Annexure 12). The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order after considering all the points raised by the petitioner and aspects involved in the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent concerned should give atleast one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before disposing of the departmental appeal of the petitioner. If the petitioner does not cooperate, it will be open to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merit. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-02