JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Being aggrieved of the findings returned in favour of the workman in W.P.(L) No. 33 of 2011, M/s. Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCL’) is before us through the medium of instant Letters Patent Appeal, which already stands admitted vide order dated 13th October, 2014 and on prayer of the workman, taken on Board for its final consideration out of the turn. 2. Since the case, as set up by CCL, as one finds from the record, is with regard to impersonation of a workman, we would like to refer the name of the workman. He is Biraj Chouhan @ Biraj Nonia. As per CCL, he had impersonated one Sukhdeo Nonia and worked with CCL for long 26 years and then his services were terminated, which gave him a cause to knock at the doors of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad (in short ‘Tribunal’) and obtained a favourable order of his reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. CCL, being aggrieved of the award, approached the learned Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(L) No. 33 of 2011, which now stands dismissed by the learned Writ Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 5th September, 2012, affirming the view of learned Tribunal whereby it has been held that although the domestic inquiry held by CCL on preliminary issue was fair and proper, but, the findings arrived at on the basis of material produced before the concerned Enquiry Officer was not sufficient to prove the charge inasmuch as the author of the report was not examined to test the authenticity of the report. Sukhdeo Nonia, who was allegedly impersonated, did not come forward to prove the fundamental charge against the workman in the domestic inquiry. Certain other aspects/infirmities have also been taken into consideration while affirming the findings of the learned Tribunal. 3. This is how CCL is before us through the medium of the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, appearing for CCL and Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing for the workman. We have also gone through the record. 5. What appears to us is that, learned Writ Court, for its satisfaction, has once again gone into the details of the entire case on factual aspects and thereafter only confirmed the findings of the learned Tribunal. 6. Mr. Rajesh Lala, appearing for CCL and Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing for the workman. We have also gone through the record. 5. What appears to us is that, learned Writ Court, for its satisfaction, has once again gone into the details of the entire case on factual aspects and thereafter only confirmed the findings of the learned Tribunal. 6. Mr. Rajesh Lala submitted that the charge against the workman is proved from the record made available to the Inquiry Officer. He has submitted that the Vigilance Cell of CCL had gone to the Village of Sukhdeo Nonia and, after joining a police official from the concerned police station, recorded the statement of certain villagers from which it revealed that it was a case of impersonation by aforesaid Biraj Chouhan @ Brij Nonia. On specific query put to Mr. Rajesh Lala as to whether the report of Vigilance Cell was placed before the Writ Court, he fairly stated that it was not the part of the Writ Court Record, but, has now been annexed with the memo of appeal by way of supplementary affidavit. CCL cannot be permitted to develop a new case altogether before us, which was never its case before the learned Writ Court. 7. Admittedly, no criminal case was registered against the workman for impersonation. Even if we give some margin for the said lapse, the charge of such a grave nature is required to be proved to the hilt even in the domestic inquiry and cannot be said to be proved on mere probabilities as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India & Others versus Gyan Chand Chattar reported in (2009) 12 SCC 78 . The best witness for proving the charge of impersonation against the workman was Sukhdeo Nonia, who, admittedly, has not come forward during the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman. All these aspects were considered by the learned Tribunal while recording a finding in favour of the workman, which was, subsequently, affirmed by the learned Writ Court. We do not find any reason, much less good reason to disturb the said finding. We have also been informed that the workman has since superannuated. 8. Resultantly, the appeal, on hand, merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 9. Interim order dated 12th May, 2014 stands vacated. We do not find any reason, much less good reason to disturb the said finding. We have also been informed that the workman has since superannuated. 8. Resultantly, the appeal, on hand, merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 9. Interim order dated 12th May, 2014 stands vacated. Amount deposited by CCL, as 50% back wages with Tribunal, shall now be released in favour of the workman on his laying motion before the concerned authority. It goes without saying that all other monetary benefits shall also flow towards him. 10. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Lala submits that the workman has already moved an application for non-compliance of the award of learned Tribunal under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act at Hazaribagh, therefore, he may be directed not to prosecute the said application as CCL is ready to pay all the dues to him without any delay, but, positively, within three months from today. 11 The workman shall stay his hands from prosecuting the said application for three months from today enabling CCL to clear all his dues, in default thereof, the said application shall be disposed of in accordance with law for implementation of the award returned against CCL.