Holding

The rule is unconstitutional and cannot be used; the respondents must be given a fair enquiry, are deemed suspended, and are entitled to subsistence allowance pending that enquiry.

Summary

The case arose from a fatal roof collapse in the South Govindpur Colliery on 30 June 1989, which killed five miners and injured two. The senior mining engineer, Babular, and the manager, Maheshwari Sharma, were alleged to have been absent and to have failed to take safety precautions, leading a fact‑finding committee to conclude that they derelicted their duties. The employer terminated their services under Rule 12.4(1)(c) of the Common Coal Cadre, 1974. The Supreme Court had earlier struck down that rule as violative of Article 14, rendering it inapplicable. The Court held that the respondents were entitled to a fair enquiry, deemed to be under suspension, and to receive subsistence allowance pending the enquiry, which must be completed within six months. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of without costs, directing the employer to pay the allowance and conduct the enquiry.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 12.4(1)(c) of the Common Coal Cadre, 1974 can be invoked to terminate employment for alleged dereliction of duty.
Whether termination without a prior enquiry violates the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the respondents are entitled to suspension and subsistence allowance pending a disciplinary enquiry.
What time‑frame is appropriate for completing the enquiry and disbursing the allowance.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

service lawterminationnatural justicesuspensionsubsistence allowanceArticle 14coal mining accidentdisciplinary enquiry

Judgment

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS. A
v.
BABULAL AND ANR. ETC.

AUGUST 5, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Common Coal Cadre, 1974:

Rule 12.4(1)(c}-Tenni11atio11-Accide11t in coal mine-Serious injuries C
to and loss of lives of minors-Report of fact finding committee indicating
that there was dereliction of duty 011 the pa1t of Senior Mining Engineer and
Manager. On charge of dereliction of duty their services were tenninated by
the Company exercising power under the Rule-Held, the Rule having been
stntck down as violative of A1ticle 14 of the Constitution, was never in vogue D
to invoke the exercise of power by the Company-When charge of de1i/iction
of duty was iniputed to the respondents, it was necessary to hold an inquiry
giving an opp01tu11ity to them-Appellalll should hold an inquiry giving
reasonable opponunity to the respondents in accordance with law-Delin-
quent would be dee1ned to be under suspension and entitled to the subsistence
allowance pending inquiry. E

.G.P. Lalv. Coal India Ltd., C.A. No. 3673of1988decided by Supreme
Court on 24.11.1994; relied on.
'•
Managing Director, ECJL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kamukar and
Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 727, followed. F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10866 of
1996 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.95 of the Calcutta High
Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1548 of 1990. G
Anip Sachthey, C.D. Singh and H. Munshi for the Appellants.

H.L. Agarwal and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : H
289
290 SUl'REMECOURTREPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

These appeals arise from the order made on November 21, 1995 by
the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in FMAT No. 1548/90 and
B 250/92. Admitted position is that the respondent Babula! was Senior Min-
ing Engineer and the other first respondent Maheshwari Sharma was a
Manager working in the South Govindpur Colliery, Govindpur area. On
June 30, 1989, an accident had occurred at 2.00 p.m. due to fall of the roof
in XI Seam (of coal) due to which five miners died and two miners were
C seriously injured. It is the case of the appellant that both the first respon-
dents were not present at the site nor had they taken necessary safety
precautions to aver accident to the miners. A fact finding Committee can1e
to be appointed to find out the cause for the death of the five and injury
to two miners. The report dated July l, 1989 appears to have put it
p Jintedly that there was dereliction of the duty on the part of the respon-
D dents resulting in the mine accident. Consequently, the appellant exercised
the power under Rule 12.4(1)(c) of the Common Coal Cadre, 1974 which
reads as under :

n12.4. Tennination

E (i) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the contract of appoint-
ment of the executive Cadre employee may be terminated other-
wise than on disciplinary grounds :

(a) ··········································
F (b) ......................................... .

(c) With three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof on confirma-
tion in the service, on either side. 11

G On the basis thereof, the service of both the first respondents came
to be terminated. It is not in dispute that this Court in C.A. No. 3673 of
1988 titled G.P. Lal v. Coal India Ltd. had struck down the rule as violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the rule was never in vogue
to invoke the exercise of the power by the appellants.

H The question then is : what would be the position of the respondents?
BHARATCOKINGCOALLID.v. BABULAL 291

It is not far to seek that when charge of dereliction of duty was imputed A
to both the first respondents, it was necessary to hold an enquiry to give
an opportunity to them before laking any disciplinary action for the alleged
dereli~tion of the duly. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellant should
hold an enquiry against both the first respondents giving reasonable oppor-
tunity to them according lo the rule. Constitution Bench rendered the B
decision in Managing Directm; ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Kamukar
and Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727 h<.d held that the delinquent must be deemed
to be under suspension pending enquiry.

In view of the above, we hold that the respondents are entitled to the
subsistence allowance during the pending enquiry. Enquiry should be C
completed within six month from the date of the receipt of the order.
Subsistence allowance shall be paid within six weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order.

The appeals are accordingly disposed oL No costs.
D
R.P. Appeals disposed of.