1 2026:CGHC:8353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 568 of 2015 1 - Shobharam Jaiswal S/o Dhanushdhari Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years R/o B. Sim Khonga Pahi, Thana - Jhagrakhand, Teh, Manendragarh, Distt. Koria Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Field Limited Through Managing Director Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Sr. Manager Personal Jhagrakhand, Sagariya Teh - Manendragarh, Distt. Koria C.G., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sr. Manager M West Jhagrakhand Colliery Jhagrakhand, Teh, Manendragarh, Distt. Koria C.G., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri S.P. Kale and Shri Abhishek Singh, Advocates. For Respondents : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 16.02. 202 6 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.12.2014 and 04.01.2015 (Annexure P/1 collectively) whereby the petitioner was imposed with penalty of demotion of lower grade from his present grade w.e.f. 12.12.2014. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.07 15:43:18 +0530 2 2. The facts of the are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as General Majdoor Category-1 on 24.05.1989 and subsequently he was promoted on the post of Security Guard and thereafter Senior Security Guard (T&S, grade-F). He was transferred at Jhagrakhand sub area on 30.06.2005. The petitioner was charge sheeted on 03.10.2014 for misconduct and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In the departmental enquriy he was held guilty for misconduct in violating the company’s certified standing order as he unauthorizedly allotted the company’s quarter to other person which is violative of Clause 26(1) and 26(2) of the certified standing order. After holding him guilty in the departmental enquiry, he was punished with a penalty of demotion to a lower grade which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct and there is no violation of any certified standing order of the respondent SECL. The Personnel Department of respondent SECL allots quarter to its employee without apprising the security department. The subject quarter was earlier allotted to one Maiku who was Ex-Clipper. After vacating the quarter by Maiku, he has not allotted the said quarter to any other workmen, but one Murit Ram was put in possession of said quarter which was initially allotted to Maiku and the petitioner certified that Murit Ram was not in possession of any property of the respondent SECL and on the basis of that the Gratuity was paid to him. He would further submit that the petitioner is nowhere concerned with the said act of possession of the quarter of the company or its allotment. Since the quarter was vacated by Maiku and only to secure the property of the company, he took a 3 decision of taking possession of said quarter and put his lock. He has not allotted the said quarter to anyone. Murit Ram shown his own house and there was no any record of any allotment of the house, therefore, he issued No Dues Certificate and thereby he has not committed any misconduct, yet he was imposed penalty of demotion to next lower grade from his present grade which is not sustainable. He would further submit that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided during the departmental enquiry and the authorities have passed the order holding him guilty. The petitioner also filed an appeal under Clause-30 of the certified standing order, but the same has not been decided by the authorities. He would fairly submit that during pendency of present writ petition, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2023. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 and 04.01.2015 may be set aside. 4. No one appears on behalf of respondents though served. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner is not disputing that a departmental enquiry was conducted against him in which he was held guilty for misconduct of certified standing order. The charge against the petitioner was that he issued NOC in favour of Murit Ram despite having possession of quarter of the company. By the said act of the petitioner, the property of the respondent company caused damage and the petitioner was held guilty for the same. Though the petitioner submits that he has filed an appeal under Clause -30 of the certified standing order, but he could 4 not produce any document that his appeal is pending or he actually filed the appeal before the competent authority. 7. When the petitioner has been held guilty in the departmental enquiry, the authorities have imposed penalty for demotion to a lower grade from the present grade and then seniority of the petitioner should be at the bottom of the list with basic as per the rules. Clause-27(1)(f) of the certified standing order, applicable to respondent SECL, provides following penalty: “27. Penalties for Misconduct- 27.1. The following punishment/penalties may be imposed for misconduct: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (f) Demotion to a lower stage or a lower grade in time scale.” 8. When certified standing order of the Company provides penalty for demotion of employee to a lower grade, and the petitioner was found guilty for the alleged misconduct which remains unaltered either by any proceeding or appeal, he was entitled for punishment which has rightly been imposed by the authorities and demoted to a lower grade. 9. From perusal of pleadings and material annexed with the writ petition, this court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 11.12.2014 and 04.01.2015. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder