Can't Be Kept Out Of Work When No Disciplinary Proceedings Were Initiated: Telangana High Court Reinstates 'Badli Filler' Worker After 32 Yrs

The Telangana High Court has directed the Singareni Collieries Company to reinstate a Badli Filler and pay consequential benefits of 32 years, holding that the Badli Filler/petitioner could not be kept out of service as he was neither issued posting orders after his transfer nor were any disciplinary proceedings initiated to investigate into his apparent unauthorized absence.

The order was passed by Justice Juvvadi Sridevi in a plea seeking to declare the actions of the Coal Company in not permitting the petitioner to discharge his duty despite the issuance of an order in 1992 directing him to report on duty.

The petitioner had contended that he had been appointed to the Coal Company in 1989 and was transferred to another area in 1992 and that the transfer proceedings were issued, however, no appointment proceedings were issued as per the transfer order. The petitioner further contended that while he was waiting for his posting order, he was implicated in a criminal case, due to which he was traumatized mentally and after being acquitted in 1996 he underwent medical treatment until 1999.

Nonetheless, it was submitted that after the completion of his treatment, the petitioner reported for work but was not allowed to discharge his duty on the allegation that he had been absent from work without any authorization since the issuance of his transfer orders.

It was the contention of the petitioner that the Coal company had never initiated any disciplinary proceedings against him and in the absence of the same, he could be restricted to discharge his duties.

The Coal Company contended that as per the Transfer order, the petitioner would be posted for duty only after reporting on duty. However, since the petitioner failed to do so till 1999, he became ineligible for the Transfer.

The bench noted that if such was the case, the Company ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner only after which the petitioner could have been terminated from his job.

The Bench relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Delhi Transport Cooperation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress [1991] and others and held:

"The aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner support his case, as in this case also, the petitioner was kept out of service as he was neither issued any posting orders after his transfer to Ramakrishnapur area nor any disciplinary proceedings were initiated for his alleged un-authorized absence. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for with all consequential benefits."

Accordingly, it allowed the plea and directed for the petitioner's reinstatement within three months of the order and also for the payment of all his back wages and benefits.

WP: 12932 of 2011

Counsel for petitioner: Prabhakar Chikkudu

Counsel for respondents: Nandigam Krishna Rao

Click Here To Read/Download Order