Page No.1 of 3 IN WPS-2355-2016 2025:CGHC:27486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2355 of 2016 Dilip Kumar S/o Late Shri Kirat Ram, Aged About 25 Years Regular Labour R/o Village Bhadra, Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chairman Cum Managing Director South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, P/ A South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - General Manager, Sohagpur Region, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy General Manager, P/ I R South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Head Quarter Seepat Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Office Of The Manager, Damni U G Mine, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Damni Underground Minefield P. O. Khairha Distt. Shahdol Madhya Pradesh, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh 6 - The Manager, Mine Damni South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Damni Underground Minefield P. O. Khairha Distt. Shahdol Madhya Pradesh, District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.06.26 16:37:29 +0530 Page No.2 of 3 IN WPS-2355-2016 24.06.2025 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate authority finding no merit and, thereby, affirming the order dated 15.05.2015, by which, the petitioner has been removed from service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is a non-speaking and unreasonable order, as merely after stating the facts, the appeal has been dismissed by the appellate authority finding no merit, which is not the correct manner to dispose of the appeal and the appellate authority was required to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, the present petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-SECL would support the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 would show that the appellant authority has only stated that the appeal of the petitioner was preferred within time, but his absence from 2010 to 2012 is not satisfactory and, therefore, considering the gravity of misconduct, Page No.3 of 3 IN WPS-2355-2016 petitioner’s appeal has been dismissed. However, the appellant authority ought to have recorded a finding that whether the procedure laid down in the standing instruction/rules has been followed or whether there is any violation of principle of natural justice or whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence available on record or whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe and, thereafter, could have passed the final order, which has not been done in the present case and, straightaway, merely after stating the facts of the case, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed without considering its merits. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01) is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.10.2015 (Annexure-P/01), passed by the appellate authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal of the petitioner by following due process, as narrated above, in accordance with law within 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if