Telangana High Court
A. Manohar Rao vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 28 August, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 21050 OF 2021
O R D E R:
Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner joined respondent Company as Engineer on 20.05.1977; on account of hard work, meritorious service and several achievements, he was promoted as General Manager, Chief General Manager and finally, to the post of Director (Planning & Projects) in 2012. After serving four years and four months as such, he retired on 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of 60 years. Learned counsel submits that consequent upon his retirement, on 31.03.2017, he addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 on 01.10.2017 requesting permission to join as Director in Sushee Hi-tech Projects, which was not having any business relations with Singareni Collieries. This letter was addressed in view of Rule 16.5 of C.D.& A. Rules, 1989. For ready reference, this Rule is extracted below:
"Rule-16.5: "No M-2 and M-3 executive of the company including Functional Directors, who has retired from the services of the company or shall retire in due course, after such retirement, shall accept any appointment or post whether Indian or foreign, with which the 'Company' has or had business relations, within two years from the date of his retirement without prior approval of the Company".
1.1 It is submitted, as petitioner had not received any reply from Respondent No.1, he joined in the said Organization on 01.11.2017. While so, he was issued the Articles of Charge 2 (Charge-Sheet) dated 26.07.2021. According to learned counsel, petitioner being an Executive was governed by the "Singareni Collieries Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1989" (for short, the 1989 Rules) amended from time to time. A perusal of Chapter-1, Rule 2.1 clearly stipulates that these Rules shall apply to all the employees holding posts in the Executive cadre. For ready reference, the said Rule is extracted below:
Rule 2.1: "These rules shall apply to all employees holding posts in the Executive Cadre scales of pay of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and to such other employees as may be notified by the Company from time to time.
1.2 According to learned counsel, petitioner was not an employee as on the date of issue of Articles of Charge, hence the Charge Sheet is void for inapplicability of Rules to retired employee. It is submitted, in case of retired employees, Rules 34.4 and 34.5 of the Rules specify the condition for initiating disciplinary proceedings after retirement. A bare perusal of the Rules clearly indicates that no disciplinary proceedings can be instituted for an event which took place more than four years before such institution. In this regard, petitioner submits that having retired on 31.03.2017 and the institution of disciplinary proceedings dated 27.07.2021 is well beyond four years and hence, the very institution of disciplinary proceedings is void ab initio.3
1.3 Learned counsel contends that even otherwise, a very bare perusal of the Articles of Charges does not indicate exercise of any power to initiate disciplinary proceedings consequent upon his retirement. Hence, the Articles of Charges as framed is without Authority of Law. In 2016 (on 22.02.2016), respondents floated a Tender for removal of overburden and the period of contract is 72 months. At the said time, petitioner was Director (Planning & Projects) and in the said capacity of Chairman of Tender Committee, by duly taking into the views of GM (CM), CGM (CPP) and GM (Finance) who are the other Members of tender committee, the proposal was recommended to Director (Finance) for financial concurrence and to recommend it to C&MD who is the final approving authority for placement of the proposal in the Board. As far as respondent Singareni Collieries is concerned, any contract having more than Rs.30 Crores has to be approved by Board of Directors which consists of 9 Directors; two each from Government of India and State Government and five from Respondent No.1 Company and petitioner was one of the Directors of Board.
Ultimately, Approval to award the contract lies with the Board and Respondent No.2 will be appraising the Board on the Technical and Financial implications. Thus, petitioner is not the only Director but all the Directors including Respondent No.2 4 who are in league of the award of contract have taken decision collectively.
1.4 According to learned counsel, the 2nd charge is violation of Rule 16.5 of C.D. & A Rules, 1989. Petitioner joined M/s. Sushee Hi-tech Projects. It had floated a Joint Venture under name and style of M/s Prasad-Sushee (JV) having business with Singareni Collieries, but the company in which petitioner joined is not attracted by Rule 16.5 of the Rules 1989. Therefore, said charge also cannot be alleged against petitioner at this length of time after four years from the date of retirement. Further, petitioner submits that the charges framed are void ab initio as the same is issued beyond four years of petitioner's retirement, offending Rules 34.4 and 34.5, as such sought for interference of this Court into the impugned Charge Memo.
2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondents Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy submits that SCCL is a Government Coal Mining Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is jointly owned by both the Government of Telangana and the Government of India on 51:49 equity basis. Petitioner was initially appointed in Respondent Company on 20.05.1977 and retired from the service as 5 Director (Planning & Projects) on 31.03.2017. Further, Rule No.16.5 of Company CDA Rules reads as follow:
"No M2/M3 (presently E-8 Grade) Executives (Presently designated as General Managers) of the company including functional Directors, who has retired from the services of the company or shall retire in due course, after such retirement, shall accept any appointment or post whether advisory or administrative, in any firm or company, whether Indian or foreign, with which " the company" has or had business relations, within 2 years from the date of his retirement without prior approval of the company".
As per the above Rule, petitioner shall take prior permission from Respondent Company before he accepts/joins M/s Sushee Hi-Tech Projects which is having business with the Respondent Company as M/s Prasad Sushee (Joint Venture) at Srirampur Opencast Project (SRPOCP) vide Purchase Order No.7600006484, dated 29.06.2016. According to petitioner, the said firm had secured tender during his tenure as Chairman of Tender Committee. M/s Prasad Sushee (JV) started/commenced its work i.e. removal Overburden (OB) Removal work from June, 2016 as such the averment made by petitioner that Respondent Company is not having any business relations with M/s Prasad Sushee (JV) at the time of his joining in that firm as Executive Director is absolutely not true and correct, hence denied. Petitioner never submitted any Application in writing to Respondent Company that he is going 6 to join as Executive Director in M/s Sushee Hi-Tech Project after his retirement, as such the averment made by him that he had applied/submitted Application dated 01.10.2017 to Respondent Company requesting permission to join M/s Sushee Hi-Tech Project is absolutely not true and correct, hence denied. Respondent stated that petitioner has not obtained prior permission from respondent company as required under Rule 16.5. As per the Purchase Order dated 29.06.2016, the Respondent Company will supply diesel to the Contractor for operation of the machinery which shall be used exclusively for removal OB. However, after reporting the incident of diversion of diesel) by the Contractor at SRPOCP Project on 02.02.2019, Respondent Company Vigilance Department conducted enquiry immediately and lodged a complaint against representatives of M/s Prasad- Sushee JV) in SRP Police station vide FIR No.27 of 2019, dated 30.03.2019. Further, the respondent company has referred the matter to Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Government of Telangana on 01.07.2020 to enquire into the matter since it was grave in nature. It is submitted that Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Government of Telangana commenced its enquiry in July 2020 and submitted report to Chairman & MD on 04.06.2021 recommending suitable disciplinary action against Petitioner and other 24 candidates. 7 Petitioner himself attended for enquiry in September, 2020 and he admitted several facts including deposing his statement to the VE Department that he has not verified diesel formula as Chairman of Tender Committee and eased for allowing excess diesel allocated to the contractor. Petitioner was issued Articles of Charge under Rules 34.4 and 34.5 of Conduct Discipline Appeal (CDA) Rules of the Respondent Company since the incident reported on 02.02.2019 which has taken place two years after his retirement from the company services. After perusal of entire records including Vigilance Report dated 04.06.2021, respondent company issued Articles of Charges to petitioner after duly following procedure as per Rule 34.5. The allegations made by petitioner that Respondent Company issued Articles of Charges after expiry of four years of retirement is absolutely not true and correct and hence denied. The Respondent Company has come to know about the incident on 02.02.2019 and the Articles of Charges were issued to petitioner within stipulated time under CDA Rules. As per Rule 34.4, disciplinary proceedings against retired Executives even after lapse of four years can be taken with the sanction of the Chief Executives where they are not instituted while the executive was in service. In this instant case, petitioner retired from the services of respondent company on 31.03.2017 and incident 8 took place on 02.02.2019 and the respondent company initiated disciplinary proceedings by invoking CDA Rules, 1989 by taking approval from competent authority as per Rule 34.4(i) in accordance with the procedure. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of Articles of Charges on 02.08.2021 and he submitted representation on 14.08.2021 addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director of the Respondent Company requesting to extend time to submit defense statement up to 31.08.2021. 2.1 Learned Standing Counsel further submits that initiation of Tenders for OB removal works for Respondent company projects will be carried out by Contract Management Department which functions under the Director (Planning & Projects). It is submitted that the proposal for Tenders will be drafted and finalized by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Director (Planning & Projects). It is submitted that OB Removal work of SRPOCP project Tender was floated under the Chairmanship of Petitioner in 2016 and while awarding Tender, Petitioner approved adoption of HEMN Diesel Formula without verification and ignoring implications of the above modification (Corrigendum) caused financial loss to a tune of Rs.96,812 Crores to Respondent Company even though combination of HEMM and conventional equipment is envisaged in the Agreement. It is submitted that Petitioner accepted Contractor's 9 request in the pre-bid meeting to increase number of conventional equipment from 3 to 8 without verifying financial implications which caused huge loss to Respondent company. Further, Petitioner approved the Corrigendum to NIT with total knowledge at the cost of company. Petitioner being the Chairman of Tender Committee is accountable for wrong proposal submitted to the Board, which is revealed in the V&E department enquiry. Consequent upon his action, Respondent company incurred huge financial losses of Rs. 96.812 Crores for the alleged diesel diversion amounting to Rs. 200 Crores. It is submitted that Tender got approved with petitioner's total knowledge, as such the averments of petitioner that Tender got approved by the Board and not by individual in the capacity of Director (P&P) is not tenable.
2.2 According to learned Senior Counsel, petitioner has not made out prima-facie case in view of the facts as brought out in the above paras and there is no balance of convenience in its favour, hence the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and not maintainable under the law to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The short and limited point involved in the present case is that whether respondents are justified in issuing charge- 10 sheet dated 26.07.2021 nearly more than four years after petitioner retired from service i.e. on 31.03.2017 itself.
4. According to petitioner, Rules 34.4 and 34.5 of the Rules specify the condition for initiating disciplinary proceedings after retirement. A bare perusal of the Rules clearly indicates that no disciplinary proceedings can be instituted for an event which took place more than four years before such institution. In this regard, petitioner submits that having retired on 31.03.2017 and the institution of disciplinary proceedings dated 27.07.2021 is well beyond four years, hence, the very institution of disciplinary proceedings is void ab initio.
5. It is contended that bare perusal of Articles of Charge does not indicate exercise of any power to initiate disciplinary proceedings consequent upon his retirement. Hence, the Articles of Charge as framed is without Authority of Law. Petitioner submits that in 2016 (on 22.02.2016), respondents floated a Tender for removal of overburden and the period of contract is 72 months. At the said time, petitioner was Director (Planning & Projects) and in the said capacity of Chairman of Tender Committee, duly taking into account the views of GM(CM), CGM (CPP) and GM (Finance) who are the other Members of tender committee, proposal was recommended to Director (Finance) for financial concurrence and to 11 recommend it to C&MD who is the final approving authority for placement of the proposal in the Board. As far as respondent Singareni Collieries is concerned, any contract having more than Rs.30 Crores has to be approved by the Board of Directors which consists of nine Directors; two each from the Government of India and the State Government and five from Respondent No.1 Company. Petitioner is one of the Directors. Ultimately, approval to award the contract lies with the Board and Respondent No.2 will be appraising the Board on the Technical and Financial implications. Thus, petitioner is not the only Director but all the Directors including Respondent No.2 who are in league of the award of contract have taken decision collectively. Further, the 2nd charge levelled against petitioner is violation of Rule 16.5 of C.D. & A Rules, 1989. Petitioner joined M/s. Sushee Hi-tech Projects. It had floated a Joint Venture under name and style of M/s. Prasad-Sushee (JV) which was having business with Singareni Collieries. But the company in which petitioner joined is not attracted by Rule 16.5 of the Rules 1989. Therefore, said charge also cannot be alleged against the petitioner at this length of time after 4 years from the date of retirement. Further the petitioner submits that the charges framed are void ab initio as the same is issued beyond 12 four years of petitioner's retirement, offending Rule 34.4 and 34.5 of 1989 Rules.
6. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondents that petitioner retired from the services of Respondent company on 31.03.2017 in the capacity of Functional Director i.e. Director (Planning & Projects). As per Rule 16.5, petitioner shall require to take prior permission from Respondent Company before he accepts/joins in M/s Sushee Hi-Tech Projects which is having business with Respondent Company as M/s Prasad Sushee (Joint Venture) at Srirampur Opencast Project (SRPOCP) vide Purchase Order dated 29.06.2016. According to petitioner, M/s Prasad-Sushee (JV) firm had secured tender during the tenure of petitioner, who is the Chairman of Tender Committee. M/s Prasad Sushee (JV) started/commenced its work i.e. removal Overburden (OB) Removal work from June, 2016, as such the averment made by petitioner that Respondent Company is not having any business relations with M/s Prasad Sushee (JV) at the time of his joining in that firm as Executive Director is absolutely not true and correct. Further, respondents vehemently contend that petitioner never submitted any Application in writing to Respondent Company that he is going to join as Executive Director in M/s Sushee Hi-Tech Project after his retirement, as 13 such the averment made by the petitioner that he had applied/ submitted Application dated 01.10.2017 to Respondent Company requesting permission to join M/s Sushee Hi-Tech Project is absolutely not true and correct. Respondents state that petitioner has not obtained prior permission from them as is required under Rule 16.5. As per the Purchase Order dated 29.06.2016, Respondent Company will supply diesel to the Contractor for operation of machinery which shall be used exclusively for removal OB. However, after reporting the incident of diversion of diesel by the Contractor at SRPOCP Project on 02.02.2019, Respondent Company Vigilance Department conducted enquiry immediately and a complaint was lodged against representatives of M/s Prasad- Sushee JV in SRP Police Station vide FIR No.27 of 2019, dated 30.03.2019. Further, respondents referred the matter to Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Government of Telangana on 01.07.2020 to enquire into the matter since it was grave in nature. It is submitted that Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Government of Telangana commenced its enquiry in July 2020 and submitted report to Chairman & MD of the Respondent Company on 04.06.2021 recommending suitable disciplinary action against Petitioner and other 24 candidates. Petitioner himself attended enquiry and admitted several facts including 14 deposing his statement to the VE Department that he has not verified diesel formula as Chairman of Tender Committee and eased for allowing excess diesel allocated to the contractor. Petitioner was issued Articles of Charge under Rules 34.4 and 34.5 of Conduct Discipline Appeal (CDA) Rules since the incident reported on 02.02.2019 which has taken place two years after his retirement from the company services. After perusal of entire records including the Vigilance Report dated 04.06.2021, respondent company issued Articles of Charges to petitioner after duly following procedure as per the Rule 34.5. The allegations made by the petitioner that the Respondent Company has issued Articles of Charges after expiry of four years of retirement is absolutely not true and correct and hence denied. The Respondent Company has come to know about the incident on 02.02.2019 and the Articles of Charges has been issued to the petitioner within stipulated time under CDA Rules. As per the Rule No. 34.4 of CDA Rules of the respondent company, disciplinary proceedings against retired Executives even after lapse of four years can be taken with the sanction of the Chief Executives where they are not instituted while the Executive was in service. In this instant case, petitioner retired from the services of the company on 31.03.2017 and the incident took place on 02.02.2019 and the respondent company 15 initiated disciplinary proceedings by invoking CDA Rules, 1989 taking approval from competent authority as per Rule 34.4(i) of CDA Rules in accordance with the procedure. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of Articles of Charges on 02.08.2021 and submitted representation on 14.08.2021 to the Chairman & Managing Director requesting to extend time to submit defense statement up to 31.08.2021. As such the charge memo issued by the respondent is proper and cannot be interfered.
7. Before delving into the issue on hand, it is apposite to refer to the relevant rules pertaining to Rules, 1989.
Conditions for initiating departmental proceedings after retirement: (34.4 and 34.5) Rule 34.4: "Where disciplinary proceedings are not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment these shall not be instituted.
(1) Save with the sanction of the chief executive and (2) For an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.
The disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the disciplinary authority may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to executives in service on which an order imposing any penalty mentioned in Rule 27 could be passed.
Rule 34.5: "No disciplinary proceedings shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.
8. It is an admitted fact that petitioner retired from services on 31.03.2017 and institution of disciplinary proceedings dated 27.07.2021 is well beyond four years. However, what respondents state is that as per the Purchase Order dated 29.06.2016, they will supply diesel to the 16 Contractor for operation of machinery which shall be used exclusively for removal OB. After reporting the incident of diversion of diesel by the Contractor at SRPOCP Project on 02.02.2019, Respondent Company Vigilance Department conducted enquiry immediately and a complaint was lodged against representatives of M/s Prasad- Sushee JV in SRP Police Station vide FIR No.27 of 2019, dated 30.03.2019. Further, the company referred the matter to Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Government of Telangana on 01.07.2020 to enquire into the matter since it was grave in nature. It is submitted that Vigilance & Enforcement Department, Government of Telangana commenced its enquiry in July 2020 and submitted report to the Chairman & MD on 04.06.2021 recommending suitable disciplinary action against Petitioner and other 24 candidates. Petitioner himself attended for enquiry conducted in September, 2020 wherein he admitted several facts including deposing his statement to the VE Department that he has not verified diesel formula as Chairman of Tender Committee and eased for allowing excess diesel allocated to the contractor.
9. Be that as it may, this Court has to see from the material documents placed before it as to whether initiation of disciplinary proceedings are in accordance with law or not. 17
10. This Court after going through the material documents opines that Purchase Order was issued on 29.06.2016 and petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2017. Thus, the event and/or cause of action arose during 2016. Respondents except stating that petitioner has not obtained prior permission before joining another firm after retirement, were not in a position to explain as to why disciplinary proceedings were initiated by them against petitioner after four year period contrary to Rule 34.5 of the Rules, 1989.
11. It is trite law that when the rules prescribe certain time period for institution of disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employee, the same has to be scrupulously followed by the Authority which was governed by the Rules. In other words, it becomes a jurisdictional point to the Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against its employee within the prescribed time limits enumerated in the Rules. If the Authority fails to adhere to the time fixed for initiating disciplinary action against its employees and if the Authority initiates disciplinary action belatedly or beyond the time period fixed in the Rules governing the Authority, then the same would tantamount to inherent lack of jurisdiction.
12. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab State Power Corporation 18 Limited, Patiala v. Atma Singh Grewal 1. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder.
" 2. The Respondent filed the Writ Petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the said charge sheet on the ground that it was barred in view of Rule 2.2.(B) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules 2 reserves right with the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part of it under certain circumstances viz. when in judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings, such an employee is found to have committed grave misconduct or negligence. It also provides for recovery of peculiar loss, if caused. However, second proviso to the aforesaid provision stipulates the time limit within which the departmental inquiry can be instituted, in respect of an ex-employee if it was not stated while such a Government officer was in service. The precise language of second proviso is as follows:-
"Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and if he has retired, the event should not be more than 4 years old.
iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service.
3. In the present case since the changes were of the year 2002 and charge sheet served in the year 2008, it was manifest that the alleged event took place much more than 4 years before the serving of charge sheet and after his retirement. In this ground the learned Single Judge quashed the said charge sheet dated 7.1.2008. The petitioners chose to file appeal before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 20.8.2009.
4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that in view of aforesaid admitted facts, second proviso of Rule 2 states at the 1 (2014) 13 SCC 666 19 face of the petitioner and no fault can be found in the judgment of the High Court."
13. The law on this aspect is well-settled. Suffice it to refer another judgment on the same i.e. Brajendra Singh Yambem vs Union of India 2 wherein also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed memorandum of charges issued beyond the period of limitation of four years. While holding the same, the Apex Court also held that if manner of doing particular act is prescribed under any statute, then act must be done in that manner or not at all. Further, the Apex Court held that High Court therein erred in holding that once due sanction obtained by disciplinary authority from President of India, then bar of limitation of four years contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) would not apply, since sanction accorded itself was barred by limitation and the impugned judgment of High Court upholding decision of respondents to hold departments enquiry against appellant unsustainable.
14. In the instant case, respondents without resorting to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner within four year period in terms of Rule 34.5 of Rules, 1989, had taken a stand that it had obtained prior sanction in terms of Rule 34.4 of Rules, 1989 as such issuance of Charge Memo dated 26.07.2021 is justified. In view of the decision of Brajendra 2 (2016) 9 SCC 20 20 Singh Yambem (supra), such stand of respondents is not tenable. Moreover, even if the said Rule 34.4 is read and taken as it is, it also clearly prohibits initiation of disciplinary proceedings for an event which took place more than four years before such institution.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that issuing Charge Memo (Articles of Charges) dated 26.07.2021 nearly more than four years after petitioner retired from service i.e. 31.03.2017 itself is without jurisdiction as the same is issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 34.5 of Rules, 1989 and accordingly, the Charge Memo dated 26.07.2021 is set aside. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed.
16. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 28th August 2025 ksld