Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 265 (JHR)

Vijay Pathak v. Bharat Coking Coal

2008-03-03

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2008
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16/ 17.8.2007 contained in Annexure-7, issued under the signature of Project Officer, East Katras Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., whereby, the petitioner who was a Fitter working in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., was dismissed from the service after an enquiry made by the Chief Personnel Manager, B.C.C.L. 3. A complaint was received by the Management of the BCCL that the petitioner who was working in the East Colliery in the capacity of Fitter was not actually Vijay Pathak and in fact his name was Mandeo Singh, son of Shri Pradeep Singh, Resident of Village - Bhawantola, P.O. -Jayprakash Nagar, P.S.-Bairia, District Balia (U.P.). On receipt of such complaint, the management of Katras area sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Balia affixing photographs of Vijay Pathak who was working as a Fitter. East Katras Colliery for verification. It appears that after verification, the report was sent duly certified by the Superintendent of Police, Balia (U.P.) that no person named as Vijay Pathak existed in Village - Bhawantola, P.O. Jayprakash Nagar, P.S.-Bairia, District-Balia (U.P.). However, with respect to the photo-graph affixed with the letter of the General Manager. Katras Area, B.C.C.L., the villagers identified him as Mandeo Singh, son of Sri Pradeep Singh. 4. After receipt of such report by the Superintendent of Police, Balia (U.P.), the management initiated a disciplinary action against said Vijay Pathak and a detailed enquiry was made by the Chief Personnel Manager after giving full chance to the so called Vijay Pathak (petitioner herein) to defend himself and thereafter, by enquiry report as contained in Annexure-5. it was held that the concerned workman working in the name of Vijay Pathak is an imposter as per the report and actually his name is Mandeo Singh, son of Shri Pradeep Singh, Resident of Village - Bhawantola, P.O. -Jayprakash Nagar, P.S.-Bairia, District-Balia (U.P.). 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in course of arguments, tiled to assail the said enquiry report as well as the impugned order dated 16/17.8.2007 on various grounds such as there was no evidence on record to establish the fact that the petitioner was not Vijay Pathak. Secondly, without examination of the concerned Police Officer who submitted the report, his report should not have been considered by the enquiry officer. Secondly, without examination of the concerned Police Officer who submitted the report, his report should not have been considered by the enquiry officer. He also submitted that the enquiry officer wrongly held that the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that he was not an imposter. 6. I have carefully gone through the impugned enquiry report as well as the impugned order dated 16/17.8.2007 contained In Annexure-7, issued under the signature of Project Officer, East Katras Colliery. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. dismissing the petitioner from the service and I find that the learned enquiry officer, after discussing in details the evidence and materials on records and then has come to the conclusion that the workman Vijay Pathak was an imposter and his real name was Mandeo Singh, son of Shri Pradeep Singh. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to establish the fact docs not appears to be correct which has been discussed in the impugned enquiry report and therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and hence, the same is rejected. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition. Consequently, this writ pettion is dismissed. Petition dismissed.