1 CGHC010321942026 2026:CGHC:40604- DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 863 of 2026 Shri Yugal Bhattad S/o Late Maniklal Bhattad Aged About 72 Years Ex Senior Manager (Legal) South Eastern Coalfields, Limited R/o Shivkunti, Tekdi, Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur Maharashtra. ... Appellant / Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S E C L) Through-Its Chairman Cum Manager District Seepat, Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495006 2 - Chairman Coal India, Limited, Coal Bhawan Premises, No. 04, M A R Plot, No. A F 3, Action Area, 1 A, Newtowan, Rajarhat, Kolkata, 700156. 3 - Secretary Ministry, Of Coal Government Of India, A Wingh Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg New Delhi, -110001. 4 - Senior Manager (Legal) South Eastern, Coalfields, Limited Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. -495006. ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System} For Appellant : Mr. Tridib Bhattachartya, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Santosh Sharma , Judge Order on Board 2 Per : Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice 17.09.2026 1. The Appellant, in this intra-Court Appeal, seeks to assail the order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure A /1) passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3490 of 2026 {Shri Yugul Bhattad vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others} wherein appellant (petitioner therein) had challenged the Enquiry Report dated 15.02.2017 and Communication dated 04.10.2025. Learned Single Judge on consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material on record dismissed the writ petition by impugned order under Annexure A/1, which is under challenge in this intra-Court Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing at the time of enquiry, which was conducted pursuant to his complaint dated 17.01.2017. It is submitted that enquiry report was submitted in a haste and there appears non-application of mind while submitting the enquiry report. It is further submitted that adverse remarks have been made against the appellant without providing him an opportunity of hearing. He also relied upon the order dated 25th November, 2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 15191 of 2022 (Dushyant Mainali v. Diwan Singh Bora & Another). It is his submission that relying upon the case of Neeraj Garg vs. Sarita Rani & others reported in 2021 (9) SCC 1992, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no one should be condemned without providing him an opportunity of hearing. These aspects though raised before learned Single Judge was not taken into consideration, hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure A/1. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents- SECL vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that although the enquiry report was 3 submitted on 15.02.2017, but the Writ Appeal was filed belatedly in the year 2026. In order to create cause of action, the Appellant had also challenged the Communication dated 04.10.2025, which was only a reply to his repeated communications. It is his submission that upon receipt of the complaint made by the Appellant, a Committee was constituted and after a detailed enquiry the Committee submitted its report on 15.02.2017. The Appellant had knowledge of such report, as he had referred to the said report in a writ petition filed by him before Delhi High Court (Writ Petition No. 9967 of 2024). Learned Single Judge considering the materials in its proper perspective and giving adequate opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the parties, passed the impugned order under Annexure A/1. It is also submitted that no adverse remark has been made against the Appellant, which is clear from Communication dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure A/5) annexed to the writ petition. Every allegation made by the Appellant in his complaint has been dealt by the Committee in detail and the impugned report was submitted. Since the impugned order under Annexure A/1 is reasoned one, which is passed taking note of the contention raised and the materials on record, the same warrants no interference and the Writ Appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record. Also perused the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the appellant was working as the Ex-Senior Manager (Legal) under South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). He was superannuated on 31st March, 2015 and thereafter he made a complaint on 17th January, 2017 making certain allegations. Upon receipt of complaint, a Committee was constituted 4 and an enquiry was conducted by the said Committee. On consideration of the materials on record, the allegations made by the appellant were found to be false and accordingly impugned report dated 15.02.2017 was submitted. 6. On perusal of the enquiry report, it does not appear that any adverse remarks has been made against the appellant, as alleged by the appellant. The Committee while submitting the report only taken note of certain allegations made against the Appellant, which does not constitute an adverse remark against him. The same has also been clarified in the communication under Annexure A-5. Further, the allegations being enquird into by a fact- finding Committee, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant, as it was not felt necessary. It is also not stated how the appellant was aggreived by not providing him an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the Appellant fairly submits that there is no statutory rule or guidelines governing the field to provide a personal hearing to the complainant, when complaint is being considered by a fact-finding Committee. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order under Annexure A /1. On perusal, the impugned order appears to be reasoned and well discussed one. Learned Single Judge observed that delay in filing the writ petition has not been explained, which appears to be correct. As such, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure A/1. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra) Dubey Judge Chief Justice AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.09.18 10:59:58 +0530 5