Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 356 (JHR)

Rajendra Mahto v. Central Coalfields Limited

2024-04-04

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order under Ref. No. PO/Topa/DA/Dismissal/2021/281 dated 28.06.2021 issued under the signature of the Project Officer, Topa Colliery, Ramgarh-respondent no. 4, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order under Ref. PD/IR-L/Kuju/2021/1923 dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi-respondent no. 2 (appellate authority), whereby the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service and let him continue till attaining the actual date of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2021 as well as to pay the wages for the period from April, 2021 to June, 2021 after adjusting the leave due towards medical leave. It has also been prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the post retiral benefits to the petitioner. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on 03.02.1982 as a piece rated employee of CCL in lieu of acquisition of his land for Topa Project and while he was working as Senior Wireless Operator/R.T. Operator, Grade-B, Topa Project at Topa Telephone Exchange, a copy of Office Order No. 879 dated 04.12.2020 issued under the signature of respondent no. 5 was served to him informing that since his date of birth recorded in the service register was 20.06.1961, he would retire from service on 30.06.2021 on attaining the age of 60 years. 3. It is further submitted that due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, several family members of the petitioner died. Being in unstable mental condition on account of depression due to said death, he could not attend the duty from 22.04.2021. In the meantime, one Kameshwar Mahto and others made a complaint against the petitioner, which was forwarded to him asking explanation vide letter no. PO/Topa/PD/Complaint/ 2020-2021/875 dated 17.04.2021, whereupon he vide letter dated 23.04.2021 requested the respondent no. 5 to grant one month’s time to file reply to the said complaint, as he was undergoing medical treatment at RINPAS, Ranchi. Subsequently, the petitioner represented the Mining Manager, Topa Project vide applications dated 18.05.2021 and 29.05.2021 to grant him sick leave with effect from 22.04.2021, as he was unwell and was under treatment at RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order bearing Ref. Subsequently, the petitioner represented the Mining Manager, Topa Project vide applications dated 18.05.2021 and 29.05.2021 to grant him sick leave with effect from 22.04.2021, as he was unwell and was under treatment at RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order bearing Ref. No. PO/Topa/DA/Dismissal/2021/281 dated 28.06.2021 issued by the respondent no. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed departmental appeal against the order of dismissal before the respondent no. 2, which was also dismissed vide Ref. No. PD/IR-L/Kuju/2021/1923 dated 16.09.2021. 4. It is further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondent nos.2 and 4 are in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing at any stage. Moreover, for the same set of charge, the petitioner was served chargesheet No. PO/Topa/DA/ 96/3583 dated 10.12.1996, which was dropped in view of the decision taken in a tripartite settlement arrived in the meeting held on 16.10.1998 among the Management, villagers and the State authorities whereafter the petitioner was allowed to join his duty with effect from 17.10.1998 vide letter no. 2991 dated 17.10.1998 issued by the respondent no. 4. As such another proceeding initiated against the petitioner for the same charge amounting to double jeopardy was not permissible in the eyes of law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a complaint of Sri Kameshwar Mahto and others, the residents of Toyra village, P.O. Topa, P.S. Mandu, was received in the office of respondent no. 4 vide Ref. no. 92 dated 10.04.2021, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had obtained employment in the CCL fraudulently against the land, belonging to the family of the complainants. Thereafter, an explanation was called from the petitioner vide letter no. 875 dated 17.04.2021, however, the petitioner sought one month’s time to submit his reply towards the alleged charges on medical ground. Since the petitioner did not submit any certificate or prescription of a doctor advising to take rest, he was again asked to submit the details of his illness, doctor and period of treatment, however, no reply was received from him. A letter was also issued to the Superintendent, RINPAS seeking details of treatment relating to the petitioner, but no reply was received from RINPAS. 6. A letter was also issued to the Superintendent, RINPAS seeking details of treatment relating to the petitioner, but no reply was received from RINPAS. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner never informed the management regarding change of his address as was required under the Clause 22 of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. A fact finding enquiry committee was constituted vide Office Order No. Po/Topa/Committ./2021/101 dated 30.04.2021. The said committee submitted its report based on the official records as well as the statements of the witnesses finding the allegation made against the petitioner as true. Subsequently, an enquiry was ordered vide Ref. no. Action/Enquiry/2021/209 dated 02.06.2021, but the petitioner never participated in the same. Hence, the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry ex-parte. Thereafter, a second show cause was issued to the petitioner, however, he failed to reply the same. Thus, the order dismissing the petitioner from service was issued by the disciplinary authority under Ref. no. Po/Topa/DA/Dismissal/2021/281 dated 28.06.2021. The said order being legal and justified does not require any interference of this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The primary argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, since no opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to passing of the same. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had never informed the management regarding his change of address as was mandated under Clause 22 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company. As such the charge sheet, notice of enquiry and second show cause notice were issued to the petitioner through special messenger as well as through registered post at his address mentioned in the official record. Notice of enquiry was also published in the local newspaper. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. Notice of enquiry was also published in the local newspaper. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. In view of the specific argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the notices were duly sent to the address of the petitioner as was mentioned in the office record, this Court does not find any substance in the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the impugned orders have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 11. Another argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the chargesheet was served upon petitioner with respect to the allegation of getting employment fraudulently, however, same proceeding was earlier dropped in view of tripartite settlement arrived among the representatives of state authorities, management and the villagers/raiyats. As such another departmental proceeding for the same set of charge was not maintainable. 12. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused Annexure-10 series, annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner from which it would be evident that a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner vide Ref. No. PO/Topa/DA/96/3583 dated 10.12.1996 alleging that he had got employment in CCL in lieu of acquisition of land, however, the raiyats had claimed that the petitioner was not the legal heir of the recorded tenant. A meeting of the representatives of state authorities, management and villagers/raiyats was held on 16.10.1998 whereafter, in terms with the tripartite settlement, the petitioner was allowed to join his duty with effect from 17.10.1998. Thereafter, during the entire service period, no objection was raised with respect to employment of the petitioner. However just one month prior to his retirement, a charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he had obtained employment fraudulently against the land which belonged to the family of the complainants, namely, Kameshwar Mahto and others. Accordingly on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry, the petitioner was finally dismissed from service. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 3 SCC 580 , has held as under: “27. In the present case, a charge memo was issued and served on the appellant. Accordingly on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry, the petitioner was finally dismissed from service. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 3 SCC 580 , has held as under: “27. In the present case, a charge memo was issued and served on the appellant. A reading of the charge memo does not contain any reference to the proceedings of the Standing Committee at all. It is also not found as to whether the earlier proceedings has been revived in accordance with the procedure prescribed. In fact, after receipt of the charge memo, the appellant, in his reply statement, had brought to the notice of the enquiry officer that on the same set of charges, a notice had been issued earlier and after receipt of his explanation dated 21-12-1994, the Standing Committee, after accepting his explanation had dropped the entire proceedings and the same had been communicated to him by the Registrar General of the High Court by his letter dated 2-2-1995. In spite of his explanation in the reply statement filed, the enquiry officer has proceeded with the enquiry proceedings and after completion of the same, has submitted his report which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no justification for conducting a second enquiry on the very charges, which have been dropped earlier. Even though the principle of double jeopardy is not applicable, the law permits only disciplinary proceedings and not harassment. Allowing such practice is not in the interest of public service. In the circumstance, we cannot sustain the impugned order reverting the appellant to the lower post.” 14. Thus, when certain allegation is levelled against an employee by issuing a chargesheet and the same is subsequently dropped, there is no justification in conducting a second enquiry on the same charge, which has been dropped earlier. Even though the principle of double jeopardy is not applicable, the law permits only disciplinary proceedings and not harassment. 15. In the present case also, the charge levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet vide Ref. No. PO/Topa/DA/96/3583 dated 10.12.1996 was almost similar to the charge levelled in letter no. PO/Topa/Complaint/2020-2021/875 dated 17.04.2021. Both the charges contained allegation of getting employment fraudulently by the petitioner. 15. In the present case also, the charge levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet vide Ref. No. PO/Topa/DA/96/3583 dated 10.12.1996 was almost similar to the charge levelled in letter no. PO/Topa/Complaint/2020-2021/875 dated 17.04.2021. Both the charges contained allegation of getting employment fraudulently by the petitioner. Thus, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar Verma (Supra.) the respondents have committed serious error in issuing the letter dated 17.04.2021, when the similar charge levelled against the petitioner in the chargesheet dated 10.12.1996 was deemed to have dropped by allowing him to rejoin the service. 16. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner had got employment fraudulently, the respondent authorities were bent upon to pass the order of his dismissal just few days prior to his retirement that too when the earlier chargesheet issued to the petitioner with respect to the same matter was deemed to have dropped by the respondents in terms with the tripartite settlement arrived between the representatives of state authorities, management and the villagers/raiyats. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents puts reliance on the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 332 of 2020 (Janki Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others), wherein it has been held as under: “13. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was found to have got appointment on the basis of impersonation, as would be evident from enquiry report and, therefore, this Court is not hesitant in holding that the appointment got by the writ petitioner on compassionate ground is nothing but based upon commission of fraud. 14. Therefore, since it is settled position of law that fraud vitiates everything as such appointment of the writ petitioner, if treated to be nullity in the eye of law by the respondents-authority, the order of punishment of dismissal cannot be said to suffer from any error, even the order of dismissal is held to be without jurisdiction. Further since the appointment of the writ petitioner has been held to be nullity, as such the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the fruits of the service rendered by him since his appointment itself was based upon fraud which he has got by impersonation.” 18. Further since the appointment of the writ petitioner has been held to be nullity, as such the writ petitioner is not entitled to get the fruits of the service rendered by him since his appointment itself was based upon fraud which he has got by impersonation.” 18. Learned counsel for the respondents puts further reliance on another judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Gopi Ram Vs. The Chief General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited & Others, 2016 SCC Online Jhar 2695, wherein it has been held that the order of dismissal from service on the ground that the petitioner of the said case had impersonated himself as son of late Dukalu B.P. and had fraudulently secured appointment on compassionate ground, is the most appropriate penalty imposed upon him. 19. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case as the earlier chargesheet issued to the petitioner was deemed to have been dropped as per the tripartite settlement and the petitioner was allowed to join his duty. Thus, the matter against the petitioner was closed by the respondents. They cannot be allowed to reopen the matter at the fag end of the petitioner’s service. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order under Ref. No. PO/Topa/DA/ Dismissal/2021/281 dated 28.06.2021 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 4 as well as the order under Ref. PD/IR-L/Kuju/2021/1923 dated 16.09.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 are hereby quashed. The concerned respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service and treat him to have superannuated with effect from 30.06.2021 on attaining the age of 60 years as well as to pay all the consequential benefits to him. 21. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.