Poonam Mishra vs South Eastern Coal Field Limited

Heard Ms. Rashika Soni, learned counsel holding the brief of Ms. Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3046 of 2022 (Poonam Mishra v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and other), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition.

The crux of the matter to make it brief is that the respondent No.4 was prosecuted for a criminal case for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 & 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC arising from an FIR that was lodged at Police Station Sirgitti vide Crime No. 118/2018 dated 15.04.2018. The respondent No.4 was arrested and was subsequently released on bail in the criminal case which was lying. Subsequently, the father of the respondent No.4-late Ajay Kumar Singh an employee of the respondent No.1 died in harness. The respondent No.4 thereafter, applied for dependent employment/compassionate appointment. The respondent No.1/company on due scrutiny of the application of the respondent No.4 for compassionate appointment in terms of the conditions mentioned in the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) granted appointment to the respondent No.4 to the post of General Majdoor (trainee) vide order dated 16.04.2020. Since then the respondent No.4 has been working under the respondent No.1. On 7.01.2022 the instant writ petition was filed with the following prayer :

“1. That this Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to command the Respondent Company (employer) to produce the entire record of documents relating to the employment of Respondent No.4.

That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ Petition and order the Respondent Company (employer) to set aside the employment gained by Respondent No.4 by providing false information to his knowledge in the affidavit.

Any other relief which this Court may deem fit and proper under above circumstances which may be awarded to the petitioner.”

The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, rightly disposed of the writ petition holding as follows :

“7. Considering the locus of the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the nature of amendment sought for by the petitioner is not one which could be permitted to be agitated through the petitioner in the present writ petition. The petitioner substantively is aggrieved of the material suppression made by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.1 at the time of obtaining employment. The only thing which was available for the petitioner was for an appropriate intimation to the employer in this regard. The employer having accepted the said complaint of the petitioner and have thereafter subjected the respondent No.4 for a disciplinary proceeding, the substantive grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed. It is thereafter for the concerned employer to take an appropriate decision taking into consideration the gravity of the charges that have been leveled upon him. The petitioner as such would not have any indefeasible right to determine/interfere with the decision making power of the respondent No.1 (the employer).

In the instant case if at all, if the impugned action is bad in any manner, it would be for the concerned employee to agitate the same by an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum or an appropriate Court of law. It cannot be left for the petitioner herein to agitate against the order of punishment passed against the respondent No.4 by way of the power of judicial review in the course of entertaining the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is perhaps of the view that once when the petitioner has brought it to the notice of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 having already taking cognizance of the said complaint and have also decided to hold a disciplinary proceeding against the erring employee i.e. the respondent No.4, the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed. In the light of the aforesaid factual matrix and substantive nature of the writ petition that the petitioner has filed, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment application is not worth entertaining, the same is accordingly rejected.

It is further held that for the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the fact that the respondent No.4 has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the respondent No.4 has also been inflicted with a major punishment along with an order of withholding of his promotion until the outcome of the criminal case that is lodged against him arising out of the FIR dated 15.04.2018, this Court again is of the firm view that the substantive grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

The writ petition therefore in the given factual matrix need not be further continued for any other purpose, the writ petition with the aforesaid observations stands disposed of.”

Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. We do not find any fault in the impugned order.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.