Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. v. Babulal and Anr. Etc.

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 (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) ·········································· (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. R.P. Appeals disposed of.