AI Insights
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by employees of the Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) challenging the disciplinary actions taken against them, which included reductions in pay and withholding of increments based on the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioners argued that these rules were not applicable to them as their service conditions were governed by the CMPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964. The court examined precedents and similar cases to determine the applicability of the CCS (CCA) Rules to CMPF employees and found that the disciplinary actions taken were not in accordance with the law, leading to the quashing of the punishment orders.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801000 (HC-JHARKHAND)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
11-12-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3680 of 2021 Chandra Bhushan Prasad …. …. Petitioner With W.P.(S) No. 3686 of 2021 Bhakti Nath Mishra …. …. Petitioner With W.P.(S) No. 3704 of 2021 with I.A. No. 10170 of 2023 Ramesh Kumar Das …. …. Petitioner With W.P.(S) No. 3799 of 2021 Mukesh Kumar Singh …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal-cum-Chairman / Board of Trustees, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO), New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO), Head Quarters Office, Police Line, Dhanbad. 3. The Regional Commissioner-I-cum-Inquiry Officer, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO), Regional Office, Nagpur. 4. The Assistant Commissioner-I-cum Presenting Officer, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO), Head Quarters Office, Dhanbad. …. … Respondents (in all cases) ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 10/ 11.12.2023 Since common question of law is involved in all these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In W.P.(S) No. 3680 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 895 dated 5.10.2020 (Annexure-10) by which punishment of reduction of pay by four stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with effect from 15.10.2020 under the provisions of Rule 31 (iv) of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964 has been imposed, with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments i.e. withholding of four increments with cumulative effect has also been imposed. The petitioner has also 2 challenged the appellate order dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure-20) by which the punishment order has been affirmed. 3. In W.P.(S) No. 3686 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1103 dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure-10) by which punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with effect from 15.12.2020 under the provisions of Rule 31 (iv) of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964 has been imposed, with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments i.e. withholding of three increments with cumulative effect has also been imposed. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 1.2.2022 (Annexure-20) by which the punishment order has been affirmed. 4. In W.P.(S) No. 3704 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 1102 dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure-10) by which punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with effect from 15.12.2020 under the provisions of Rule 31 (iv) of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964 has been imposed, with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments i.e. withholding of three increments with cumulative effect has also been imposed. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 22.03.2023 (Annexure-20) by way of I.A. No. 10170 of 2023, whereby the punishment order has been affirmed. 5. In W.P.(S) No. 3799 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 754 dated 15.9.2020 (Annexure-10) by which punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with effect from 15.9.2020 under the provisions of Rule 31 (iv) of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964 has been imposed, with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments has also been imposed. The petitioner 3 has also challenged the appellate order dated 24.2.2022 (Annexure-20) by which the punishment order has been affirmed. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the very initiation of departmental proceeding under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is bad in law as the petitioners are the employees of Coal Mines Provident Fund and their service conditions are governed by the field of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964. Learned counsel further submits that though the punishment has been awarded to the petitioners under the Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964, but such punishment is not prescribed under the said Regulation, 1964. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 242, wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows:- “Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by the Rule of Law, the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be imposed. Principle enshrined in criminal jurisprudence to this effect is prescribed in the legal maxim nulla poena sine lege which means that a person should not be made to suffer penalty except for a clear breach of existing law.\" 7. Learned counsel also submits that this Court in a similar matter in the case of Devashish Das Vs. Union of India & Ors, decided in W.P.(S) No. 1558 of 2011 held that proceeding under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the employees of CMPF, rather, they are guided by provisions of CMPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964. Further, the said view has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 221 of 2020. 8. Learned counsel further submits that exactly similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 4131 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs. The Union of India & Ors.) and after considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court has been pleased to quash and set aside the punishment order as well as appellate order, with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in view of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964, if they so wish. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the present writ 4 petitions may also be decided in view of the observations and directions given as that of similarly situated persons. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also admits the position that exactly same and similar issue has been decided by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4131 of 2021 and hence, the present writ petitions may be decided in terms of the order passed therein. 10. Having heard the fair submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration in view of the fact that the petitioner is an employee of CMPF and is guided by CMPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964 and not by CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under which the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and as such, the entire proceeding conducted under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not tenable in the eyes of law. 11. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Devashish Das Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.S. No. 1558 of 2011) wherein it was held that the proceeding under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the employees of CMPF rather, they are guided by provisions of CMPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964. Further, this Court in case of Chandan Kumar & Ors. Vs. the CMPF & Ors. (W.P.S. No. 678 of 2019) has reiterated the same view which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 221 of 2020, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under:- 21. The appellants have tried to justify the memorandum dated 14.09.2018 that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated under the Regulation, 1964 but it is only in conjunction with the provision of Rule 14 and 18 of the Central Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and hence there is no illegality. 22. But we are not in agreement with the said submission reason being that when there is complete conduct Rule by way of Regulation, 1964 laying down the procedure, the disciplinary authority has been defined along with the conferment of power to deal with the minor or major punishment with the procedure as quoted hereinabove, why the disciplinary proceeding will be initiated by taking aid of the another provision which is applicable to the Central Govt. Employees. 23. There is no bar that the same cannot be done but the same is to be done in pursuance to the provision as provided under the Regulation 4 wherein the Commissioner has been conferred with the power that if the provision as contained under Regulation 5 1964 is incomplete or insufficient then the Commissioner can take aid of the corresponding provision applicable to the Central Government Employees. But subject to approval by the Central Government. But, there is no approval of the Central Government, since, no ground has taken as would be evident from the impugned memorandum dated 14.09.2018 wherein, there is only reference of the provisions of Rule 14 and 18 of the Rule, 1965 along with the provision of Regulation, 1964. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when the Regulation, 1964 provides a provision under Regulation 4. The exercise of power to take aid of the another provision can well be taken only in pursuance to the provision as contained in Regulation 4. This is on the basis of the principle that if any provision has been made in the statute either by way of Act or Rule or Regulation, the decision/thing is to be strictly in accordance with the law. Reference in this regard to be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Babu Verghese vs. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422 which reads as under: 31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor who stated as under: “[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.” 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan These cases were considered by a three- Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Singhara Singh and Ors., reported in AIR (1964) SC 358, wherein it has been held at paragraph 8 as under: “....its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted....” Reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court also needs to be made in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633, wherein it has been held at paragraph 27 as under: 6 “..... it is a normal rule of consideration that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself....” Reference is also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., reported in (2005) 1 SCC 368, wherein it has been held at paragraph 26 as under: “....it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed.....” Reference is also made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Director ESIC Hyderabad & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No.5138- 40/2007), reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690, wherein it has been held at paragraph 14 as under: “14. As per the scheme of the Act, the appropriate Government alone could grant or refuse exemption. When the statute prescribed the procedure for grant or refusal of exemption from the operation of the Act, it is to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, it was held that: (SCC p.378, para 26) 26.... it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.” It is the settled position of law that a thing is required to be done strictly in pursuance to the provisions of law, if any deviation, then ultimately the provision as contained under the statute will have no effect.” 12. Very recently, this Court exactly in a same and similar matter in W.P.(S) No. 4131 of 2011 (Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs. The Union of India & Ors.) decided on 02.11.2023 held that since the respondents have their own Regulation i.e. Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964, they are precluded from adopting a different Rules for initiation of departmental proceeding and thereafter, the impugned punishment order as well as appellate order has been quashed and set aside, with liberty to the respondents to proceed in view of their own Regulation. 13. In the facts of this case, the impugned punishment orders which are at Annexure-10 and the appellant orders which are at 7 Annexure-20 of the respective writ petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved with the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in view of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964, if they so wish. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all these writ petitions stand allowed. I.A. No. 10170 of 2023 also stands allowed. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) R.Kr. "
Other Referred Cases
Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Devashish Das Vs. Union of India & Ors., Ajay Kumar Sinha Vs. The Union of India & Ors., Chandan Kumar & Ors. Vs. the CMPF & Ors., State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ambay Cements & Anr., Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Director ESIC Hyderabad & Ors.
Laws Referred To
Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1964, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
CRM Implementation Plan
₹0
No Objection Letter for Use of Property – Partnership Firm
₹0
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026