Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2630 (JHR)

Pramod Kumar v. Central Coalfields Limited

2018-12-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and CCL. 2. Petitioner got employment under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in place of one Charku Karmali, Wagon Loader, declaring himself to be his dependant son-in-law. He was charge sheeted on 10.12.1998 vide Annexure-2 of having procured employment by false declaration as dependant son-in-law of Charku Karmali, although he has no family relationship with him. It was alleged that he claimed to have married Srupati Devi, the only daughter of Charku Karmali in the year 1977, but in his service sheet excerpts and nomination form ‘F’ for payment of gratuity, he mentioned the name of Smt. Kanti Devi as his wife who was not the daughter of Charku Karmali. Thus, he fraudulently entered into service and continued illegally on the pay rolls of the Company. This was an act of indiscipline and misconduct under Clause 7(i)(a) of the Certified Standing Orders. Petitioner participated in the inquiry and adduced witnesses in defence as well. The Inquiry Officer R.N. Kumar, Deputy C.S.O., C.C.L. Headquarters, Ranchi submitted his report, based on which, second show-cause notice was issued upon him as to why appropriate punishment should not be imposed. Annexure-5 dated 17.01.2007 is the second show-cause notice along with the inquiry report. 3. Petitioner submitted his rely vide Annexure-6 dated 08.02.2007. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer and the reply submitted by the petitioner, did not find any extenuating circumstances which could warrant to take any other view than held by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service with immediate effect by the order impugned dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure-7). 4. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer and the reply submitted by the petitioner, did not find any extenuating circumstances which could warrant to take any other view than held by the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner was accordingly dismissed from service with immediate effect by the order impugned dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure-7). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge inter-alia submits that (i) termination of his service after 30 years on factual ground is incorrect and untenable in law; (ii) he was conferred appointment after satisfying all formalities; (iii) he was being penalized for solemnizing inter-caste marriage, though it is not impermissible in law; (iv) petitioner has been penalized for inappropriate action of his the then wedded wife i.e. daughter of Charku Karmali who chose to run away with her paramour; (v) respondents have unfairly expected the petitioner to produce original witnesses after 30 years of his appointment, specially in-laws who were already old in the year 1978 and were no longer alive; (vi) Disciplinary Authority has failed to apply its independent mind and blindly accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer. 5. On factual score, learned counsel for the petitioner has adverted to the statements made in the writ petition and submitted that marriage with Srupati Devi, daughter of Charku Karmali at Tuti Jharna temple, an inter-caste marriage did not turn out to be successful because she was of bad character. Despite efforts of the petitioner and his in-laws, she refused to mend her ways and ran away in 1980. With the consent of his family and his in-laws, he contracted second marriage in 1982 with Kanti Devi who is now his legally wedded wife. Accordingly, he nominated Kanti Devi in his service excerpts and nomination form ‘F’ for gratuity. Original appointment was made under Voluntary Retirement Scheme on acceptance of VRS by his father-in-law Charku Karmali and after fulfilling all the required formalities including joint application before the committee constituted by the Respondent CCL comprising of Mining Superintendent and officers of the Personnel Department as also union representative. It is further submitted that his case was examined in detail, so was his father-in-law and other witnesses before the appointment was offered. He had performed his duties with satisfaction to all concerned and also availed number of promotions up to the post of Grinder, Helper till he was dismissed. 6. It is further submitted that his case was examined in detail, so was his father-in-law and other witnesses before the appointment was offered. He had performed his duties with satisfaction to all concerned and also availed number of promotions up to the post of Grinder, Helper till he was dismissed. 6. During inquiry, he defended himself by filing show-cause on 16.12.1998 to the charge sheet. Only Management witness I.I. Joseph, Deputy C.P.M. during his examination, has stated that there was no evidence of marriage of the petitioner with the daughter of Charku Karmali. Petitioner adduced five witnesses namely, Asharafi Tiwari (DW-1), Ambika Yadav (DW-2), Ram Rath Yadav (DW-3), Rajendra Prasad (DW-4) and petitioner himself (DW-5). They corroborated his marriage with Srupati Devi and her running away in 1980 subsequent to the marriage. DW-3 was part of the committee which had approved the case of the petitioner for appointment. Management exhibited Voluntary Retirement Scheme, written statement of the petitioner, his nomination form ‘F’, joint application against voluntary retirement of Charku Karmali, letter dated 26/27.02.1979 of Sub Area Manager addressed to the GM, Argada, letter dated 08.02.1979 of S1 to GM, Argada and note sheet concerning voluntary retirement of Charku Karmali. There were marked as Exh-M.E.-1 to M.E.5. Petitioner produced marriage certificate dated 15.04.1977 of Tuti Jharna Temple, Hazaribagh (Annexure-4) in support of his marriage with Srupati Devi, daughter of Charku Karmali. However, the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of having obtained appointment by fraudulent means by falsely declaring himself to be the son-in-law of Charku Karmali. He had failed to produce any proof of being son-in-law of Charku Karmali. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority accepted the inquiry report without application of mind and issued a second show-cause notice. His reply thereto was also not considered with proper application of mind before passing the impugned order. The findings in the inquiry report suffered from a complete non-application of mind and more specifically to the proof of marriage (Annexure-4) submitted by him. Based on these findings recorded after almost 30 years of his appointment, he has been dismissed from service in an arbitrary and illegal manner which requires interference by this court. 7. Counsel for the CCL has defended the impugned order and relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. Based on these findings recorded after almost 30 years of his appointment, he has been dismissed from service in an arbitrary and illegal manner which requires interference by this court. 7. Counsel for the CCL has defended the impugned order and relied upon the contents of the counter affidavit. He has also taken a plea of maintainability of the writ petition in the presence of the alternative remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned counsel has placed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and submitted that the petitioner was accorded due opportunity to defend himself. Principles of natural justice were followed. The inquiry was fair and impartial. Charges leveled against the petitioner were examined by the Inquiry Officer. On the basis of the case of the prosecution against the delinquent employee and the evidence adduced by them, charges were found to be established. The order impugned has been passed after service of second show-cause notice together with inquiry report and after due consideration of his reply as well. There was nothing on record to show the marriage of the petitioner with Srupati Devi in 1977. Annexure-4 is a document adduced by the petitioner as proof of the marriage which is not a document admissible in law, per se. Petitioner did not produce any other evidence to corroborate his marriage in 1977. It is striking that though, petitioner obtained employment as husband of Srupati Devi and dependant son-in-law of Charku Karmali on his voluntary retirement, but the name of Kanti Devi was recorded in his service excerpts and nomination form ‘F’ for availing gratuity. The employer was also not informed of the second marriage or any lawful divorce obtained from his wife. Findings are based upon due consideration of materials. Petitioner has failed to show any perversity therein. It is not based on extraneous material beyond what was adduced during inquiry. Interference under powers of judicial review in such disciplinary matters are limited to the decision making process. This court does not sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the merits of the contention. The entire proceedings in detail have been annexed to the counter affidavit which itself shows that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. As such, there is no room for interference in the matter. 8. This court does not sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the merits of the contention. The entire proceedings in detail have been annexed to the counter affidavit which itself shows that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself. As such, there is no room for interference in the matter. 8. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the relevant materials borne on record and taken note above. Scope of interference in a disciplinary proceeding under writ jurisdiction is limited to the extent of testing the decision making process on grounds of judicial review and whether the findings arrived during inquiry are perverse or based on any extraneous materials. A detailed inquiry was conducted against the petitioner for the charges of obtaining employment through false declaration after due opportunity to him as well. The materials on record do make out any ground for questioning the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the ground of perversity. Petitioner has not been able to show that the findings are based on no evidence or that it relied upon extraneous materials. Sufficiency or adequacy of materials are not require to be scrutinized under powers of judicial review of the decision making process. Petitioner has been granted due opportunity before the order of dismissal was passed. Petitioner has obtained employment as husband of Srupati Devi and dependant son-in-law of the employee Charku Karmali who accepted Voluntary Retirement Scheme, whereas service records of the petitioner revealed the name of Kanti Devi as his wife. She has also been nominated for availing gratuity in the nomination form ‘F’. Contention of the petitioner that because of bad character of Shrupati Devi, his in-laws supported his second marriage, is an argument in desperation. No father-in-law in normal circumstances would allow his son-in-law to incur second marriage leaving his own daughter. 9. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances on record and on being tested on grounds of judicial review, this Court does not find any perversity in the decision making process which calls for interference in the matter. Writ petition is devoid of merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.