Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. AND ORS. versus BABULAL AND ANR. ETC.

Decided
5 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 289 · 1996 INSC 824
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 290, margin A

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 250/92. Admitted position is that the respondent Babula! was Senior Mining 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 seriously injured. It is the case of the appellant that both the first respondents 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 respondents 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 :

p. 290, margin A

n12.4. Tennination (i) Unless otherwise specifically provided, the contract of appointment of the executive Cadre employee may be terminated otherwise than on disciplinary grounds : (a) ·········································· (b) ......................................... . (c) With three months' notice or pay in lieu thereof on confirma-

p. 290, margin D

tion in the service, on either side.

p. 290, margin F

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.

p. 290, margin G

The question then is : what would be the position of the respondents? It is not far to seek that when charge of dereliction of duty was imputed 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 opportunity to them according lo the rule. Constitution Bench rendered the 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.

pp. 290–291, margin H

In view of the above, we hold that the respondents are entitled to the subsistence allowance during the pending enquiry. Enquiry should be 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.

p. 291, margin B

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

p. 291, margin C