JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. This WP(S) No.4499 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- (i) In the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated25/28.07.2016. (ii) In the nature of certiorari to quash the order no.1065 dated 25/28.07.2016 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed/discharged from the service of Central Coalfields Limited. (iii) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority the concerned respondent i.e. respondent no.2 has passed an order dated 11.10.2011 whereby and whereunder charge sheet cum suspension letter was addressed to the petitioner thereby holding him guilty of having fraudulent secured employment in Central Coalfields Limited by giving false informant regarding adjustment of land and thereafter put on suspension with effect from 21.10.2011. And praying for other ancillary reliefs.” 2. The writ petition WP(S) No.4424 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- “(i) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority the concerned Respondent i.e. Respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 27.10.2011 (i.e. Annexure-3) whereby and whereunder charge sheet cum suspension Letter was addressed to the petitioner thereby holing him guilty of having fraudulent secured employment in Central Coalfields Limited by giving false information regarding adjustment of land and thereafter put on suspension with effect from 27.10.2011. (ii) For a further writ, order, direction for quashing of the order dated 23.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) issued by the Respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the services. (iii) For a further writ, order, direction for quashing of the order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. And praying for other ancillary reliefs.” 3. (iii) For a further writ, order, direction for quashing of the order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. And praying for other ancillary reliefs.” 3. The writ petition WP(S) No.4434 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- “(a) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned Respondents to show case as to how and under what authority the concerned Respondent i.e. Respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 17.09.2011 whereby and whereunder charge sheet-cum-suspension letter was addressed to the petitioner thereby holding him guilty of having fraudulent secured employment in Central Coalfields Limited by giving false information regarding adjustment in your favour of land and put on suspension with effect from 19.09.2011. (b) For a further writ, order, direction for quashing of the order dated 29.06.2016 issued by Respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the services. (c) For a further writ, order, direction for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2017 issued by Respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. And praying for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The writ petition WP(S) No.4509 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for following reliefs:- “(a) In the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.06.2016. (b) In the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.06.2016 whereby and where under the petitioner has been removed/discharged from the service of Central Coalfields Limited. (c) In the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned Respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority the concerned Respondent i.e. Respondent no.2 has passed an order dated 06.07.2011 whereby and whereunder charge sheet-cum-suspension letter was addressed to the petitioner thereby holding him guilty of having fraudulent secured employment in Central Coalfields Limited by giving false information regarding adjustment of land and thereafter put on suspension with effect from 07.07.2011. And praying for other ancillary reliefs.” 5. And praying for other ancillary reliefs.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner [in WP(S) No.4499 of 2018] has submitted that the impugned order dated 25/28.07.2016 (i.e. Annexure-6) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of CCL and order dated 07.04.2017 (i.e. Annexure-8) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner had joined the service of CCL on 21.03.1997 by way of land losing scheme and the petitioner has handed over the property of two acres of his land to the Respondents-CCL and he had performed his duty properly to the satisfaction to till the year 2011. However, the Authorities illegally suspended him on11.10.2011 for the vague charges for giving less land to the Respondent-CCL. It is submitted that the copy of Enquiry Report was not served upon him. It is further submitted that neither any witness was examined by the Respondent-CCL Authorities nor any document was marked as the Exhibit nor the petitioner was allowed to produce his witnesses and merely second show cause notice has been issued and the Department has dismissed him from the services illegally with effect from 28.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the Departmental Appeal which was also dismissed on 07.04.2017 without considering his case. It is submitted that the petitioner is poor person and illiterate and he was not aware of the enquiry proceeding. It is submitted that the petitioner had got adjusted his 15 decimal of land through Tokan Singh by giving his another land to him and the petitioner has given two acres of land at the time of securing the employment. However, he has been dismissed from the services by the CCL without any valid reasons and hence the petitioner may be reinstated into the services with all the consequential benefits. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent [in WP(S) No.4499 of 2018] has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner ought to have filed reference case before the Labour Court as the petitioner was workman at the said time. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent [in WP(S) No.4499 of 2018] has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner ought to have filed reference case before the Labour Court as the petitioner was workman at the said time. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice S.N. Pathak as then His Lordship was) of this Court in the case of WP(S) No.3572 of 2019 and WP(S) No.1785 of 2018 vide order dated 08.05.2023 and 03.08.2023 respectively has dismissed the said writ petitions as not maintainable and had directed the parties to move before the learned Labour Court for redressal of their grievances. In support of his contention learned counsel for the CCL has produced the photocopy of the said order dated 08.05.2023 in WP(S) No.3572 of 2019 and order dated 03.08.2023 in WP(S) No.1785 of 2018 and thus, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the petitioner is a workman as per the definition of Subsection 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not given total two acres of land in question rather the petitioner has cheated the CCL Authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner haf participated in the enquiry and his evidence was recorded. It is submitted that the chargesheet-cum-suspension was issued to the petitioner on 11.10.2011 for giving false information to CCL for adjustment of land of 0.15 acres of land of Shri Jamuna Prasad Kewat and others of Khata No.11 and Plot No.369 without their consent in the year 1988-89 on “D.R. and R.D. Project”. Thereafter, the Departmental Proceeding was held and the Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Office and a copy of the same report had also been given to the petitioner and some other workman also who had accepted the fact of receiving the enquiry report. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2013 and for which the petitioner had also filed his reply on 19.06.2013. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.06.2013 and for which the petitioner had also filed his reply on 19.06.2013. Thereafter, the Office order dated 25/28.07.2016 was issued by the General Manager (i.e. Respondent No.2) Dhori Area and the Disciplinary Authority has also concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and has rightly dismissed the petitioner from the services of CCL as he has given less area of 0.15 acres of land out of 2 acres of land as required for securing the employment in the CCL. Thus, there is no merit in this writ petition and hence this writ petition may be dismissed. It is further submitted that even the Enquiry Report has been enclosed in another WP(S) No.4424 of 2018 in which the petitioner has admitted his signature in the proceeding of the Enquiry Report. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Authority has fully considered the petitioner on merit and has found that there is total compliance of natural justice as chargesheet notice was issued to him and petitioner was allowed to participate in the Departmental Proceeding and a copy of the Enquiry Report was supplied upon him. Thereafter, even second show cause notice was issued to him and for which the petitioner had also filed his reply 19.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-5) which was reply to the Second Show Cause notice to him on 01.06.2013 vide Annexure-C. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from the services and there was total compliance of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner has fraudulently secured the employment by giving false information regarding adjustment of 0.15 acres of land of Jamuna Prasad Kevat and others of Khata No.11 and Plot No.369 without their consent in the year 1988-89 of “DR and RD Project” and thus this writ petition may be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the records of the Writ Petition No.4499 of 2018. 8. It appears that the petitioner of WP(S) No.4499 of 2018 was appointed by the Respondents Authorities on 21.03.1987 after he had given his land in question of two acres of land to the Respondents in the light of the scheme of the Respondents. 8. It appears that the petitioner of WP(S) No.4499 of 2018 was appointed by the Respondents Authorities on 21.03.1987 after he had given his land in question of two acres of land to the Respondents in the light of the scheme of the Respondents. It is asserted that some of the lands were domestic lands and there concrete structure was built where the petitioner along with his family members were residing and thus the said structure was demolished by the Respondents. However, after lapse of 24 years the Respondents issued the Chargesheet-cum-suspension letter vide Memo dated 11.10.2011 with the allegations that the petitioner and others secured employment by way of adjusting the land does not belong to him. The Show cause notice dated 11.10.2011 (i.e. Annexure-2). Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 12.10.2011 (vide Annexure-3) and pointed out that there was no mistake on his part and after due verification, the employment was given to him. Thereafter, the Departmental proceeding was initiated and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on 27.03.2013 and found that the charges against the petitioner stands proved. Then on 01.06.2013, a second show cause notice (i.e. Annexure-4) was issued to him and the petitioner had filed his reply (i.e. Annexure- 5). However, the Authorities were not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and however vide order dated 25/28.07.2016 (i.e. Annexure-6) petitioner was dismissed from his services. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred Appeal before the Director, Personnel, CCL, Coal India Limited. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2017 (i.e. Annexure-8) and the hence this writ petition was filed. 10. The Respondents had filed the Counter Affidavit on 10.02.2021 stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as such he has efficacious and alternative remedy. 10. The Respondents had filed the Counter Affidavit on 10.02.2021 stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as such he has efficacious and alternative remedy. They have taken the plea that the petitioner Ratho Thakur was designated as Driver, CAT-V was an employee of Respondents Company at G.M. Unit at Dhori Area, However, on 11.10.2011 he was issued show cause notice-cum-chargesheet-cum-suspension order which reads as follows:- “You have fraudulently secured employment in Central Coalfield Limited by giving false information regarding the adjustment in your favour of 0.15 acres of land of Shri Jamuna Prasad Kewat of Khata No.11, Plot No.369 without their consent in the year 1988-89 of DR and RD Project.” Which has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit. Thereafter a regular departmental proceeding was initiated by appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Management Representative and the Enquiry Officer has submitted its Enquiry Report dated 27.03.2013 (i.e. Annexure-B) by holding that charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. 11. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and issued second show cause notice to the petitioner on 01.06.2013 and also served a copy of this Enquiry Report (vide letter dated 01.06.2013 i.e. Annexure-C). 12. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 19.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-D). However, the Disciplinary Authority agreed to the finding of the Enquiry Officer inflicted the punishment of dismissal from the service from the company with effect from 29.07.2016 and dismissal letter dated 25/28.07.2016 has been enclosed (i.e. Annexure-E). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Departmental Appeal and which was also dismissed on 07.04.2017 (i.e. Annexure-7) by the Appellate Authority and hence the petitioner is not entitled for his plea. 13. It further transpires that on 25.01.2024, the Respondents have filed the Supplementary Counter Affidavit and pointed out that although on 12.09.2022 this High Court had directed the Respondents to file the Supplementary Counter Affidavit within six weeks for bringing the records of the documents by which the land owners in favour of the petitioner for getting employment in lieu of acquisition of land by CCL. 14. 14. However, all efforts made to trace the relevant documents and it was found that all the original files have been send to Sri B.K. Singh, Dy.S.P, CBI AHO, Ranchi was vide letter dated 04.01.2012 by the General Manager (ADM) CCL, HQ Ranchi and the photocopies of letter dated 21.11.2002 of the Staff Officer (P&A), Dhori Area and the letter dated 04.01.2012 issued under the Signature of G.M. (ADMN), CCL, HQ Ranchi, have been enclosed as Annexure-H and I respectively. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner [in WP(S) No.4424 of 2018] has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) and by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of the CCL by the Respondent No.2 and the order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent No.3 by which the appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner had secured the employment by the land losing scheme. It is submitted that the CCL Authorities had taken two acres of land and thereafter the petitioner has obtained the employment in the year 1986 and he was serving properly to the satisfaction of all. However, suddenly after lapse of twenty four (24) years, show cause notice issued on 02/13.07.2010 and to which the petitioner had replied vide letter dated 22.07.2010. However, the Department of CCL held the enquiry and had not allowed him full opportunity to defend himself and has dismissed him from the services vide order dated 23.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) without supplying him the enquiry report and the relevant documents. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed Departmental Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 26.09.2016 but the said appeal was dismissed by the Respondent No.3 vide order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9). Thus, the impugned notice dated 13.07.2010 and order dated 23.08.2016 and order dated 05.05.2018 i.e. Annexure-3 and Annexure-7 and Annexure-9 respectively may be set aside and the petitioner may be re-instated with all the consequential benefits. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents [in WP(S) No.4424 of 2018] has submitted that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and not maintainable. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents [in WP(S) No.4424 of 2018] has submitted that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and not maintainable. It is submitted that proper procedure has been followed during the entire Disciplinary Departmental Proceeding by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was allowed to defend himself and other persons were also examined as witnesses who are charge-sheeted employees. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty by his Enquiry Report for giving less area of land and over the two acres of land to the CCL which is evident from the enquiry report dated 27.03.2013 marked as Exhibit C-2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet-cum-suspension dated 27.10.2011 by informing him that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the employment in CCL by giving false information regarding adjustment of the land of Jamuna Prasad Kewat in “DR and RD Project.” in his favour. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer held a free, fair and impartial enquiry and had the Enquiry Report by observing the principles of natural justice in which the charged employee/petitioner appeared and defended his case. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer after holding departmental enquiry vide his Enquiry Report dated 27.03.2013 held that the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority having fully satisfied that requirements of principle and provisions laid down for quasi-judicial proceedings, have meticulously observed and followed, and the Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, served a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner by way of 2 nd show cause notice dated 08.06.2013. It is submitted that a complaint was received from Sri Jamuna Kewat and thereafter a letter dated 02/13.07.2010 was issued to the petitioner along with two other stating therein that they have acquired the employment by wrongful manner presenting the land of other person to themselves seeking reply to the same within a week. It is submitted that in pursuant to the Annexure-D of Show cause notice dated 08.06.2013 of this Counter Affidavit, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 17.06.2013. It is submitted that in pursuant to the Annexure-D of Show cause notice dated 08.06.2013 of this Counter Affidavit, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 17.06.2013. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority on examination of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, all connected documents and day to day proceedings came to the findings that a fair and impartial enquiry has been held and also on examination of the petitioner’s reply to the 2 nd show cause notice, agreeing to the findings of the Enquiry Officer inflicted the punishment of “Dismissal from the services of the company” with effect from 24.08.2016 by the dismissal order dated 23.08.2016. It is submitted that after receiving of the reply of the petitioner against the charge-sheet-cum-suspension, an enquiry committee was constituted and enquiry proceeding was initiated and concluded after three sittings in which the petitioner has participated and after free and fair enquiry and after that on following the principle of natural justice the enquiry report has been submitted and a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner by way of second show cause notice. 17. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed the Departmental Appeal on 26.09.2016 as against the said impugned dismissal order dated 23.08.2016 and the Appellate Authority upon careful consideration of the enquiry proceeding vis-à-vis the pleadings made by the petitioner in his departmental appeal, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no illegality in the order of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner and the said penalty does not warrant any interference at the appellate stage and affirmed the punishment of dismissal and disposed of the petitioner’s departmental appeal by the impugned letter/order dated 05.05.2017. It is submitted that the impugned punishment order and the appellate order passed in the departmental appeal are just, legal and proper and do not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 18. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the records of the Writ Petition No.4424 of 2018. 19. It is submitted that the impugned punishment order and the appellate order passed in the departmental appeal are just, legal and proper and do not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 18. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the records of the Writ Petition No.4424 of 2018. 19. It transpires that the above writ petition WP(S) No.4424 of 2018 has been filed on 29.08.2018 and vide order dated 15.12.2022 the instant WP(S) No.4424 of 2018 was directed to place along with WP(S) No.4499 of 2018 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court that all the matters will be heard altogether including this writ petition simultaneously. 20. During pendency of this case, the original writ petitioner Hari Prasad Nayak had died and his legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Justice Deepak Roshan) of this Court and the present petitioners are the legal heirs of the Original Writ petitioner namely Hari Prasad Nayak. 21. It transpires that from pleadings of Respondent No.1 (i.e. the Chairman-cum-Managing Director) that in order to acquire the landed property for the purpose of establishing, Kathara Washery, floated policy wherein it was stipulated whosoever provides for a total landed property measuring an area of two acres to the Respondent Authority would be provided with an employment. It was also stipulated that in the event if any individual does not have a total landed property ad-measuring two acres of land in his name, they can enter into the adjustment with the other persons whereby anyone can adjust the landed property in favour of other and in the event of settlement of landed property by one person(s) with two others so as to provide a total landed property of two acres, those who provides a total landed property ad- measuring of two acres to the Respondents, would be entitled for two jobs under the scheme. 22. It reveals that the original writ petitioner namely Hari Prasad Nayak was appointed in the year 1986 and he served for around Twenty Four (24) years. On 02/13.07.2010 (i.e. Annexure-1), show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and some other petitioners for securing employment by way of adjustment of land which does not belong to him. 22. It reveals that the original writ petitioner namely Hari Prasad Nayak was appointed in the year 1986 and he served for around Twenty Four (24) years. On 02/13.07.2010 (i.e. Annexure-1), show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and some other petitioners for securing employment by way of adjustment of land which does not belong to him. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted its reply on22.07.2010 (i.e. Annexure-2) to the Authorities stating therein that the lands, which were offered by the petitioner to the Respondents, were accepted by them after due verification through the Management and State Authorities. However, the Respondents authorities did not accept the explanation and had issued chargesheet-cum-suspension letter bearing letter no.3245 of 27.10.2011 (i.e. Annexure-3) upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 28.10.2011 (i.e. the Annexure-4) to the Respondents stating therein that the employment was offered to the petitioner after due verification duly conducted by the Respondents. Thereafter, in the meantime, the Departmental proceeding was initiated and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report and held him guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner vide on 08.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-5). However, the petitioner submitted his reply (i.e. Annexure-6) to the Respondents i.e. Project Officer, CCL. The petitioner had pointed out that during the Departmental Proceeding neither any witnesses was produced on behalf of the Respondent Authorities nor any substantial piece of evidence was produced by the Respondent Authorities. However, vide impugned order dated 23.08.2016 (i.e.Annexure-7) passed by the Respondent, the petitioner was dismissed from the services by Coal India Limited by mainly relying upon Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the Departmental Appeal on 26.09.2016 (i.e. Annexure-A) before the Respondent No.3 (i.e. the Director Personnel). However, vide order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) the Respondent No.3 had rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The Respondents have appeared and filed Counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act in the instant writ petition is not maintainable and proper remedy would be before the Appropriate Authority. However, vide order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) the Respondent No.3 had rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The Respondents have appeared and filed Counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner is a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act in the instant writ petition is not maintainable and proper remedy would be before the Appropriate Authority. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and Appellate cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India It is submitted that the sufficient evidence have been brought on record during departmental proceeding and held the petitioner guilty and even otherwise the degree of proof in the Departmental action is “Preponderance of Probabilities and not the proof beyond reasonable doubt.” They have taken a plea that original writ petitioner namely Hari Prasad Nayak was designated as Assistant Security-Sub- Inspector (T&S) Grade. GR.-D was an employee of Respondent Company-CCL had swang Washery under the Kathara Area. However, he was issued Charge-sheet-cum-suspension letter dated 27.10.2011 (i.e. Annexure-A) to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.10.2011 (i.e. Annexure-B) but his reply was not found satisfactorily. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had held a fair and impartial enquiry by observing by the principles of natural justice and in which the charged employee-petitioner has appeared and defended his case. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report on 27.03.2013 (i.e. Annexure-C) Enquiry Officer had found him guilty of charges. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.06.2013 along with the copy of the Enquiry Report (i.e. Annexure-D) to which he submitted his reply on 17.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-E). However, after examining the entire materials on record the Respondents had dismissed the petitioner from the service from the dismissal order dated 23.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-F) Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the Departmental Appeal on 26.09.2016 (i.e. Annexure-G). However, the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal vide letter dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-H). Thus, the order of punishment order and the Appellate Order passed in the Departmental appeal are just legal and proper do not warrant any interfere from this Court. However, the Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal vide letter dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Annexure-H). Thus, the order of punishment order and the Appellate Order passed in the Departmental appeal are just legal and proper do not warrant any interfere from this Court. The respondents have taken the plea that a complaint was received from Jamua Prasad Kewat and thereafter the letter dated 02/13.07.2010 was issued to the petitioner along with two others stating that they have acquired the employment by wrongful manner which is enclosed as Annexure-1. In the meantime, the original writ petitioner had died on 21.03.2020 and his legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 17.05.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Even the Supplementary Counter Affidavit was filed on 10.07.2025 on behalf of the Respondent No.1 through one Surya Pratap Singh, Assistant Manager, HR, Central Coalfield Ltd and pointed out that proper adjudication of the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court may be required to examine certain additional documents pertaining to the Departmental proceedings of the petitioner therefore the Answering Respondent is filing the present Supplementary Affidavit to bring on the record the following additional documents which are as follows:- “(i) The reports of the Departmental Proceeding conducted on 17.04.2012, 26.04.2012 and 16.10.2012. It is submitted that in the Enquiry Report submitted on 27.02.2013 reference Annexure-B of the Counter Affidavit.” These three (03) dates have been specifically mentioned as dates on which the Enquiry was conducted, the statement of the writ petition was and the evidences which was led by the petitioners. (ii) The documents relied upon by the petitioner and led as evidence in the form of Defence exhibits during the course of aforesaid Departmental Proceedings. 23. It appears that the Departmental Proceeding was conducted only on three dates and thereafter enquiry report was submitted on 27.03.2013 in the instant case. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner [in WP(S) No.4434 of 2018] has submitted that the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service of CCL by the Respondent No.2 and order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) issued by the Respondent No.3 by which the appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner had secured the employment by the land losing scheme. It is submitted that the petitioner had secured the employment by the land losing scheme. It is submitted that the CCL Authorities had taken two acres of land and thereafter the petitioner has obtained the employment in the year 1986 and he was serving properly to the satisfaction of all. However, suddenly after lapse of twenty four (24) years, show cause notice issued on 02/13.07.2010 to which the petitioner had replied vide letter dated 02.12.2010. However, the Department CCL held the enquiry and had not allowed him full opportunity to defend himself and has dismissed him from the services without supplying him the copy of Enquiry Report and the relevant documents. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed Departmental Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2016 but the said appeal was dismissed by the Respondent No.3 vide order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9). Thus, the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) and impugned order dated 13.10.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) respectively may be set aside and hence the petitioner may be re-instated with all the consequential benefits. 25. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents [in WP(S) No.4434 of 2018] has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that proper procedure has been followed during the entire Disciplinary Departmental Proceeding by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was allowed to examine himself and other persons were also examined as witnesses who are charge sheeted employees. It is submitted that the Enquiry Report has held the petitioner guilty for improper adjustment of two (02) acres of land and that they handed over to the CCL which is evident of the enquiry report dated 27.03.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that a complaint was received from Sri Jamuna Khewat and thereafter a letter dated 02/13.07.2010 was issued to the petitioner along with two other stating therein that they have acquired the employment by wrongful manner presenting the land of other person to themselves seeking reply to the same within a week. It is submitted that a complaint was received from Sri Jamuna Khewat and thereafter a letter dated 02/13.07.2010 was issued to the petitioner along with two other stating therein that they have acquired the employment by wrongful manner presenting the land of other person to themselves seeking reply to the same within a week. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet-cum-suspension dated 17.09.2011 stating that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the employment in CCL by giving false information regarding adjustment in his favour of the land of Jamuna Prasad Kewat in “DR and RD Project.” It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer held a free, fair and impartial enquiry submitted observing the principle of natural justice in which the charged employee/petitioner appeared and defended his case. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer after holding departmental enquiry report dated 27.03.2013 giving his findings that the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority having fully satisfied that requirements of principle and provisions laid down for quasi-judicial proceedings have been meticulously observed and followed, and the Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by way of 2 nd show cause notice dated 28.05.2013 served a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. It is submitted that in pursuant to the second show cause notice dated 28.05.2013, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 15.06.2013. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority on examination of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, all connected documents and day to day proceedings came to the findings that a fair and impartial enquiry has been held and also on examination of the petitioner’s reply to the 2 nd show cause notice, agreeing to the findings of the Enquiry Officer inflicted the punishment of “Dismissal from the services of the company” with effect from29.06.2016 by a dismissal order dated 29.06.2016. It is submitted that after receiving of the reply of the petitioner against the charge-sheet-cum-suspension, an enquiry committee was constituted and enquiry proceeding was initiated and concluded after three sittings in which the petitioner has participated and after free and fair enquiry it was held by the enquiry officer that on following the principle of natural justice the enquiry report has been submitted and a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner by way of second show cause notice. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority upon careful consideration of the enquiry proceeding vis-à-vis the pleadings made by the petitioner in his departmental appeal, comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner and the said penalty does not warrant any interference at the appellate stage and affirmed the punishment of dismissal and thereby disposed of the petitioner’s Departmental Appeal by the impugned letter/order dated 13.01.2017. It is submitted that the impugned punishment order and the appellate order passed in the departmental appeal are just, legal and proper and does not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. And, hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 26. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears in the Writ Petition No.4434 of 2018 has been filed on 29.08.2018. 27. It transpires that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 after giving two acres of land to the CCL. However, on 02/13.07.2010 the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 28. It transpires that the Respondents have filed the Counter Affidavit on 23.01.2023 and taken a plea that this writ petition is not maintainable after Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 27.03.2013 by holding that the charges stand proved against the petitioner. 29. It transpires that the Respondent stated that from a perusal of the Enquiry Report it is evident that the writ petitioner obtained employment against 2.00 Acres of land for which clubbing of land from other land owners have been made. The bifurcation of 2.00 Acres of land is given in a tabular form herein below:- Sl. No. Shares of land Total Area of Offered for employment Khata No. and Plot No. 01. Mohan Nayak 0.42 ½ Acres Khata No.105 and 110, Plot No. 02. Prabhu Singh 1.57 ½ Acres Khata No.11 Plot No.369 Total Area 2.00 Acres It is stated that out of 1.57 ½ Acres of land under Khata No.11, plot No.369, the land measuring 0.20 Acres does not belong to Sri Prabhu Singh and as such Sri Prabhu Singh has no right over the 0.20 Acres land which has been clubbed for the employment of the writ petitioner. It has been stated that out of total area acquired in Plot No.369, Khata No.11 is 2.17 Acres for which land compensation has been paid to Karma Kewat and Bhaglu Kewat for 1.62 Acres and 0.55 Acres respectively. Thus, Sri Prabhu Singh does not have any right over 0.20 Acres of land which has been used for the purpose of employment of the writ petitioner. 30. It transpires that the Respondents had issued second show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.05.2013 (i.e. Annexure-C). It appears that the petitioner had submitted its reply on 15.06.2013 (Annexure-D) to the second show cause notice and by the order dated 29.06.2016, the Respondents had dismissed the petitioner from the services of the Respondents-Company. 31. From perusal of the notice dated 27.03.2013, it would appear from the writ petition and the same departmental Enquiry and also from the records that they had admitted that they exchanged their lands with Jamuna Prasad Kewat and others and also Prabhu Singh and Ors. 32. From perusal of the Departmental Proceeding of Enquiry conducted on 17.04.2012, it reveals that one another writ petitioner Hari Prasad Nayak (WPS No.4424 of 2018) was present on 17.04.2012 before the Enquiry Officer in presence of representative and other writ petitioners namely Ratho Thakur, Mohan Nayak were present. 33. Thereafter, the Management representative recorded the statement of the writ petitioner and three others on 26.04.2012. Thereafter, no date has been shown by the Management and the last date on 17.10.2012 in which all the writ petitioners and four other workers were present before the Enquiry Officer and the petitioners were examined by the Management Representative and for which they had filed the reply. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioner [in WP(S) No.4509 of 2018] has submitted that the impugned order dated 07.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the services of CCL by the Respondent No.2 and order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-10) issued by the Respondent No.3 by which the appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the petitioner had secured the employment by the land losing scheme. It is submitted that the petitioner had secured the employment by the land losing scheme. It is submitted that the CCL Authorities had taken two acres of land and thereafter the petitioner has obtained the employment in the year 1986 and he was serving properly to the satisfaction of all. However, suddenly after lapse of twenty three (23) years, show cause notice was issued on 02/31.03.2011 and to which the petitioner has replied vide letter dated 14.04.2011. However, the Department CCL held the enquiry and had not allowed him full opportunity to defend himself and has dismissed him from the services on 09.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8), without supplying him the copy of the Enquiry Report and the relevant documents. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed Departmental Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2016 but the said appeal was dismissed by the Respondent No.3 vide order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-10). Thus, there is no merit in the impugned order dated 07.06.2016 and order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-8 and Annexure-10 respectively) and hence the petitioner may be reinstated with all the consequential benefits. 35. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents [in WP(S) No.4509 of 2018] has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the instant writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that proper procedure has been followed during the entire Disciplinary Departmental Proceeding by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was allowed to examine himself and other persons were also examined as witnesses who are charge- sheeted employees. It is submitted that the Enquiry Report has held the petitioner guilty for losing the land and in handed it over the two acres of land to the CCL which is evident from the Enquiry Report. It is submitted that the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet-cum-suspension dated 06.07.2011 stating that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the employment in CCL by giving false information regarding adjustment the land of Jamuna Prasad Kewat in his favour in “DR and RD Project.” It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer held a free, fair and impartial enquiry observing the principle of natural justice in which the charged employee/petitioner appeared and defended his case. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer after holding Departmental Enquiry submitted the Report dated 27.03.2013 (Annexure-A) giving his findings that the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority having fully satisfied that requirements of principle and provisions laid down for quasi-judicial proceedings have been meticulously observed and followed, and the Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer by way of 2 nd show cause notice dated 10.06.2013 served a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. It is submitted that after receiving of the reply of the petitioner against the charge-sheet-cum-suspension, an enquiry committee was constituted and enquiry proceeding was initiated and concluded after three sittings in which the petitioner has participated and after free and fair enquiry it was held by the enquiry officer that on following the principle of natural justice the enquiry report has been submitted and a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner by way of second show cause notice. It is submitted that a complaint was received from Sri Jamuna Khewat and thereafter a letter dated 02/13.07.2010 was issued to the petitioner along with two other stating therein that they have acquired the employment by wrongful manner presenting the land of other person to themselves seeking reply to the same within a week. It is submitted that in pursuant to the second show cause notice of this Petition, the petitioner had submitted his reply on20.06.2013. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority on examination of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, all connected documents and day to day proceedings came to the findings that a fair and impartial enquiry has been held and also on examination of the petitioner’s reply to the 2 nd show cause notice, agreeing to the findings of the Enquiry Officer inflicted the punishment of “Dismissal from the services of the company” with effect from08.06.2016 by a dismissal order dated 07.06.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a Departmental Appeal on 01.08.2016 as against the said impugned dismissal order dated 07.06.2016. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a Departmental Appeal on 01.08.2016 as against the said impugned dismissal order dated 07.06.2016. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority upon careful consideration of the enquiry proceeding and the evidences led in the course of enquiry proceedings, enquiry report vis-à-vis the pleadings made by the petitioner in his departmental appeal, came to an irresistible conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner and the said penalty does not warrant any interference at the appellate stage and affirmed the punishment of dismissal and thereby disposed of the petitioner’s departmental appeal by the impugned letter/order dated 13.01.2017. It is submitted that the impugned punishment order and the appellate order passed in the departmental appeal are just, legal and proper and do not warrant any interference of this Hon’ble Court. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 36. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the records in the Writ Petition No.4509 of 2018. 37. It appears in WP(S) No.4509 of 2018 that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 as he had given two acres of land to the Respondents, details of employment and land have not been mentioned by the writ petitioners. It appears that the Respondent No.1 in order to acquire landed property for the purpose of establishing coal mines floated a policy wherein it was stipulated that the whoever provides for a total landed property admeasuring 2 acres to the Respondent Authorities would be provided with an employment. It appears that the policy so floated also provided that in the event if any individual does not have a total landed property measuring two (02) acres in his own name can enter into adjustment with other persons whereby any one can adjust the landed property in favour of other. It appears that the policy also stipulated that in the event of settlement of landed property by one person(s) to other so as to provide a total landed property of two (02) acres, the person who provides a total landed property admeasuring two (02) acres to the respondent would be entitled to job under the scheme. 38. It appears that in furtherance of the aforementioned policy and by providing total landed property of two (02) acres to the respondents; the petitioner was appointed with the Respondents Authorities in the year 1986. 38. It appears that in furtherance of the aforementioned policy and by providing total landed property of two (02) acres to the respondents; the petitioner was appointed with the Respondents Authorities in the year 1986. 39. It appears that at the time of appointment in the year 1986, the petitioner was serving under the respondent authorities. Thereafter, a lapse of around 25 years, the Respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner dated 31.03.2011 (i.e. Annexure-1) alleging therein that the petitioner and other have secured employment by adjustment the land which does not belong to him. The petitioner was directed to bring certified copy relating to his land and provide explanation. 40. Thereafter, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 14.04.2011 (i.e. Annexure-2). However, the Respondents were not satisfied and thereafter, the vide memo no.149 dated 06.07.2011. the petitioner was put under suspension and Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated proceeding against him. 41. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed reply on 07.07.2011 and denied the allegation by stating therein that lands which was offered by him to the Respondents were accepted by them after due verification. Even a verification Report was also submitted to the Respondents Authorities perusing to which the employment was offered to the petitioner. 42. However, the reply of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and vide memo no.279 dated 21.07.2011. The Respondents proceeded further to hold the Departmental Enquiry as the charges levelled against the petitioner by appointing the Enquiry Officer (i.e. Annexure-5). 43. It is stated on 10.06.2013 the petitioner was given second show cause notice (i.e. Annexure-6) alongwith the copy of Enquiry Report. Thereafter, the petitioner reply vide Annexure-7 the date is not mentioned. 44. Thereafter, the Departmental Authorities dismissed the petitioner from the services by impugned order dated 07.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8). 45. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed appeal on 30.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-9) before the Appellate Authority. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-10) by the Appellate Authority. 46. The Respondents have appeared and filed Counter Affidavit stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as workman. The Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit on 13.10.2022 and have taken the same and similar prayer as prayed in WP(S) No.4499 of 2018 and WP(S) No.4424 of 2018. 46. The Respondents have appeared and filed Counter Affidavit stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable as workman. The Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit on 13.10.2022 and have taken the same and similar prayer as prayed in WP(S) No.4499 of 2018 and WP(S) No.4424 of 2018. They have stated that the petitioner is a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. They have pointed out that the petitioner Bhagwan Das was designated as Clerk Grade-II who was an employee of Respondent Company and posted at Bokaro Colliery under B&K area. The Respondents have issued chargesheet-cum-suspension order dated 06.07.2011 alleging commission of misconduct as follows:- “ You have fraudulently secured employment in Central Coalfields Limited by giving false information regarding adjustment in your favour of land of Sri Jamuna Prasad Kewat and others without their consent in 03 (three) plots of DR & RD Project.” 47. They have taken the plea that the reply filed by the petitioner on 07.07.2011 was found not satisfactory and then Departmental Proceeding was initiated by the Enquiry Officer and the Management representative vide Memo dated 21.07.2011. The Enquiry Officer held the free, fair and impartial enquiry by observing the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report on 27.03.2013 (i.e. Annexure-A) by holding charges levelled against the petitioner stands proved. 48. Thereafter, the Departmental Authority had issued second show cause notice dated 10.06.2013 and also served copy of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Second show cause notice (however the date is not mentioned) vide Annexure-7, but the same was found unsatisfactory and the Disciplinary Authority had agreed to the finding of the Enquiry Officer and inflicted the punishment of dismissal upon the petitioner vide order dated 07.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8). 49. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred the Departmental Appeal on 30.08.2016 and the appeal was also dismissed on 13.01.2017 (vide Annexure-B). 50. The Respondents have also filed the Supplementary Counter Affidavit on 19.06.2024 through one Ravi Prakash Yadav who was working as the Manager (Personnel), Bokaro Colliery, B&K area, and the photocopy of the departmental proceeding is enclosed as Annexure-SCA-A. 51. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred the Departmental Appeal on 30.08.2016 and the appeal was also dismissed on 13.01.2017 (vide Annexure-B). 50. The Respondents have also filed the Supplementary Counter Affidavit on 19.06.2024 through one Ravi Prakash Yadav who was working as the Manager (Personnel), Bokaro Colliery, B&K area, and the photocopy of the departmental proceeding is enclosed as Annexure-SCA-A. 51. It appears that the Enquiry Proceeding of writ petitioner Bhagwan Das [in WP(S) No.4509 of 2018] have not been brought on record whereas apart above the writ petitioners, the Management had also enquired from several other persons. 52. It further reveals from the statement of the petitioner Hari Prasad Nayak that he was not aware of the fact that the land belongs to Jamuna Prasad Kewat and Prabhu Singh, at that time adjustment of the land was going on. 53. From perusal of the statement of Mohan Nayak [WP(S) No.4434 of 2018], it reveals that he admitted to have stated before Enquiry Officer that he had adjusted his land with his other co-sharers in the year. 54. It further reveals that the Department had taken the plea that the documents could not be furnished as same were taken by the CBI in the year 2012 by filing Counter Affidavit and Supplementary Counter Affidavit. 55. They have also stated with regard to all these writ petitioners that all efforts made to trace the relevant documents and it was found that all the original files have been send to Sri B.K. Singh, Dy.S.P, CBI AHO, Ranchi was vide letter dated 04.01.2012 by the General Manager (ADM) CCL, HQ Ranchi and the photocopies of letter dated 21.11.2002 of the Staff Officer (P&A), Dhori Area and the letter dated 04.01.2012 issued under the Signature of G.M. (ADMN), CCL, HQ Ranchi, have been enclosed as Annexure-H and I respectively in WPS No.4499 of 2018. 56. The Department has shown that the three petitioners namely Ratho Thakur, Hari Prasad Nayak and Mohan Nayak, and except Bhagwan Das had secured employment by adjusting the land by other co-sharers / villagers. 57. 56. The Department has shown that the three petitioners namely Ratho Thakur, Hari Prasad Nayak and Mohan Nayak, and except Bhagwan Das had secured employment by adjusting the land by other co-sharers / villagers. 57. It appears that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have found that the petitioners Hari Prasad Nayak [WP(S) No.4424 of 2018], Ratho Thakur [WP(S) No.4499 of 2018], Mohan Nayak [WP(S) No.4434 of 2018], secured the employment by fraudulent land by showing adjustment of land with other co-villagers / co- sharers without having any proof of total their respective names. 58. It transpires that the above writ petitions were clubbed together vide order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan) of this Court. 59. In the meantime, two original writ petitioners of WP(S) No.4424 of 2018 (Ratho Thakur) and WP(S) No.4509 of 2018 (Bagwan Das Nayak) had died and their legal heirs were substituted vide order dated 17.05.2024 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan) of this Court in the I.A. No.4847 of 2024 in WP(S) No.4424 of 2018 and I.A. No.4848 of 2024 in WP(S) No.4509 of 2018 and the case was directed to be placed on 21.02.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan) of this Court. 60. It further transpires that on 28.06.2024 the case was admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court. Thereafter, the matter was again placed before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan) of this Court and the matter was placed on 29.07.2025 before this Court. 61. It further appears that the Respondents have raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition after seven (07) years when these writ petitions have been filed in the year 2018 and admitted on 28.06.2024 itself, and they have placed the order dated 03.08.2023 passed in WP(S) No.1785 of 2018 and order dated 08.05.2023 in WP(S) No.3572 of 2018 passed the Co- ordinate Bench (Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak as then his Lordship was) of this Court. 62. It is well settled that once the writ petition is admitted, than it cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. 63. It has been held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangarsh Samiti and Ors. S.N. Pathak as then his Lordship was) of this Court. 62. It is well settled that once the writ petition is admitted, than it cannot be dismissed as not maintainable. 63. It has been held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangarsh Samiti and Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675 at para-38 as follows:- “Para-38:- With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Chandra Tewari [ AIR 1992 All 331 ] that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that “petition cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal”. But it has not been so held in the actual decision of the Court. The relevant para 2 of the decision reads thus: (Suresh Chandra Tewari case [ AIR 1992 All 331 ] , AIR p. 331) “2. At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed.” (emphasis supplied) Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner.” 64. The above judgment has also relied upon in the case of Genpact India Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. reported in Civil Appeal No.8945 of 2019. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider the submission of the Respondent view of the fact, that earlier they have contested the case on several dates as mentioned above and they have taken time for filing the Counter Affidavit vide order dated 12.09.2022 and 11.01.2024 and 10.02.2024 and on 25.01.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and also taken time on 12.02.2024 for filing the Enquiry Report passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Even on 28.06.2024 when the case was admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court this plea was not taken and hence this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made by the Respondents at this stage. 65. It is well settled that serving of copy of Enquiry Report and Second show cause notice is mandatory and in case of non- supply of enquiry report to the employee, it will be violative of principles of the natural justice. 66. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , at Para 61 to 63 as follows: “Para 61:- It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offends Articles 14 and 21. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post-mortem certificate with putrefying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice. The contention on behalf of the Government/management that the report is not evidence adduced during such inquiry envisaged under proviso to Article 311(2) is also devoid of substance. It is settled law that the Evidence Act has no application to the inquiry conducted during the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with the Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principles of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by ‘evidence’ in the proviso to Article 311(2) is the totality of the material collected during the inquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both. Para-62:- Shri P.P. Rao obviously realising this effect, contended that the enquiry officer being a delegate of the disciplinary authority is not bound by the delegatee's recommendations and it is not a material unless it is used by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the need for its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the inquiry. Therefore, the need for its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the inquiry. In support thereof he placed strong reliance on Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [ (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ] ; Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab [ (1973) 1 SCC 680 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 293 : (1973) 3 SCR 637 ] ; Hira Nath Misra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi [ (1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260 ] ; Satyavir Singh v. Union of India [ (1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555 ] ; Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs v. K.S. Mahalingam [ (1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [ (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] . I am unable to agree with his contentions. Doubtless that the enquiry officer is a delegate of the disciplinary authority, he conducts the inquiry into the misconduct and submits his report, but his findings or conclusions on the proof of charges and his recommendations on the penalty would create formidable impressions almost to be believed and acceptable unless they are controverted vehemently by the delinquent officer. At this stage non-supply of the copy of the report to the delinquent would cause him grave prejudice. S.K. George case [ (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ] renders no assistance. It is only an inquiry against malpractice at an examination conducted by the University under executive instruction. Therein the students were given an opportunity of hearing and they were supplied with all the material, the foundation for the report. The observations of the Bench of two Judges with regard to the theory of two stages in the Inquiry under Article 311 also bears little importance for the foregoing consideration in this case. It is already seen that this Court held that the inquiry from the stage of charge-sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be split into two. The reliance in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1973) 1 SCC 380 : (1973) 3 SCR 22 ] is also of no avail. It is already seen that this Court held that the inquiry from the stage of charge-sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be split into two. The reliance in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [ (1973) 1 SCC 380 : (1973) 3 SCR 22 ] is also of no avail. Therein it was pointed out that under Section 18-A of the I.D.R. Act there was no scope of enquiry at two stages and the omission to supply enquiry report, before taking the action, did not vitiate the ultimate decision taken. In Shadi Lal case [ (1973) 1 SCC 680 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 293 : (1973) 3 SCR 637 ] Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules did not provide for the supply of copy of the report of an inquiry conducted by the fact finding authority before inquiry. It was held that the delinquent officer was supplied with all the materials and was given opportunity to make representation and the same was considered. The report did not indicate anything in addition to what was already supplied to him. Under those circumstances it was held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into an iron cast or a strait- jacket formula. Each case has to be considered and the principles applied in the light of the facts in each case. The effect of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts of the case on hand needs to be considered and visualised. The effect of Tulsiram Patel [ (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] ratio was considered by my brother Sawant, J. and it needs no reiteration. The reliance on S.K. George case [ (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ] in Tulsiram Patel [ (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] ratio renders no assistance in the light of the above discussion. Since Mahalingam case [ (1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] which was after the Forty-second Amendment Act, the need to supply second show-cause notice was dispensed with, regarding punishment and therefore, that ratio renders no assistance to the case. Since Mahalingam case [ (1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] which was after the Forty-second Amendment Act, the need to supply second show-cause notice was dispensed with, regarding punishment and therefore, that ratio renders no assistance to the case. Hira Nath Misra case [ (1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260 ] also is of no avail since the inquiry was conducted relating to misbehaviour with the girl students by the erring boys. The security of the girls was of paramount consideration and therefore, the disclosure of the names of the girl students given in the report or their evidence would jeopardise their safety and so was withheld. Accordingly this Court on the fact situation upheld the action of the Medical College. Satyavir Singh [ (1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555 ] ratio also is of no assistance as the action was taken under proviso to Article 311(2) and Rule 199 of the CCA Rules. The inquiry into insubordination by police force was dispensed with as the offending acts of the police force would generate deleterious effect on the discipline of the service. Asthana case [ (1988) 3 SCC 600 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 869] was considered by my brother Sawant, J. in which the report was not supplied and it was upheld. It should, thus be concluded that the supply of the copy of the enquiry report is an integral part of the penultimate stage of the inquiry before the disciplinary authority considers the material and the report on the proof of the charge and the nature of the punishment to be imposed. Non-compliance is denial of reasonable opportunity, violating Article 311(2) and unfair, unjust and illegal procedure offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. Para 63: The emerging effect of our holding that the delinquent is entitled to the supply of the copy of the report would generate yearning for hearing before deciding on proof of charge or penalty which Forty- second Amendment Act had advisedly avoided. So while interpreting Article 311(2) or relevant rule the court/tribunal should make no attempt to bring on the rail by back track the opportunity of hearing as was portended by the Gujarat High Court. The attempt must be nailed squarely. So while interpreting Article 311(2) or relevant rule the court/tribunal should make no attempt to bring on the rail by back track the opportunity of hearing as was portended by the Gujarat High Court. The attempt must be nailed squarely. Prior to the Forty-second Amendment Act the delinquent had no right of hearing before disciplinary authority either on proof of charge or penalty. So after Forty-second Amendment Act it would not be put on higher pedestal. The Gujarat High Court's decision is, therefore, not good law. However, the disciplinary authority has an objective duty and adjudicatory responsibility to consider and impose proper penalty consistent with the magnitude or the gravity of the misconduct. The statute or statutory rules gave graded power and authority to the disciplinary authority to impose either of the penalties enumerated in the relevant provisions. It is not necessarily the maximum or the minimum. Based on the facts, circumstances, the nature of imputation, the gravity of misconduct, the indelible effect or impact on the discipline or morale of the employees, the previous record or conduct of the delinquent and the severity to which the delinquent will be subjected to, may be some of the factors to be considered. They cannot be eulogised but could be visualised. Each case must be considered in the light of its own scenario. Therefore, a duty and responsibility has been cast on the disciplinary authority to weigh the pros and cons, consider the case and impose appropriate punishment. In a given case if the penalty was proved to be disproportionate or there is no case even to find the charges proved or the charges are based on no evidence, that would be for the court/the tribunal to consider on merits, not as court of appeal, but within its parameters of supervisory jurisdiction and to give appropriate relief. But this would not be a ground to extend hearing at the stage of consideration by the disciplinary authority either on proof of the charge or on imposition of the penalty. I respectfully agree with my brother Sawant, J. in other respects in the draft judgment proposed by him.” 67. The above judgments have also subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891. 68. I respectfully agree with my brother Sawant, J. in other respects in the draft judgment proposed by him.” 67. The above judgments have also subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891. 68. It is further evident that neither any witnesses were examined by the Management in support of its case during the Domestic Enquiry nor any document was proved by the Management. 69. It has been held in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , at Para No. 14 and 15 as follows:- “Para 14: - Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi- judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. Para 15:- We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” 70. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.” 70. It appears that this is case of non-supply of enquiry report to all the petitioners including the original petitioner namely Hari Prasad Nayak and Bagwan Das [in W.P. (S) No.4424 of 2018] and [WP(S) No.4509 of 2018], and also non-supply of documents i.e. the documents filed by the petitioner for seeking employment and also documents relied upon by the Management and the petitioners have not been given opportunity to any evidence in support of their defence. 71. Hence, all these WP(S) No.4499 of 2018, WP(S) No.4424 of 2018, WP(S) No.4434 of 2018 and WP(S) No.4509 of 2018 case can be remitted to their respective Disciplinary Authorities, who shall take a fresh decision regarding the case of all the petitioners i.e. WP(S) No.4499 of 2018, WP(S) No.4424 of 2018, WP(S) No.4434 of 2018 and WP(S) No.4509 of 2018 by serving a copy of the Enquiry Report afresh also and the copy of document on which the Managements have relied upon and also the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant Jamuna Prasad Kewat and others and also the documents on which the Managements have had relied upon. Further all the petitioners must be given full opportunity to produce their respective evidence in support of their respective cases. 72. It is evident that punishment imposed upon all the petitioners are harsh and disproportionate of gravity of their offence as they have given their respective lands to the different authorities of the CCL while securing employment and they have lost their lands. All the cases have to be revived from the stage of enquiry and the Department is bound to make enquiry or the Disciplinary Authority has to take fresh decision on the amount of quantum of punishment except the punishment of dismissal/transfer/removal from the services because of efflux of time as all the petitioners have completed their services more than 22 to 23 years before the charge sheet-cum-show case notices had been served upon them. (WP(S) No.4499 of 2018) 73. (WP(S) No.4499 of 2018) 73. It reveals from order dated 25/28.7.2016 (i.e. Annexure-6) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service is not sustainable in law as before passing the dismissal order, the petitioner company had neither been served a copy of Enquiry Report nor served any document which had been relied upon by the Management i.e. the Respondent company nor the complaint filed by Jamuna Prasad Kewat. 74. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , and in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 the order dated 25/28.07.2016 (i.e. Annexure-6) is set aside. 75. So far as Appellate Order dated 07.04.2017 (i.e. Annexure-8) passed by the Appellate Authority is concerned, the same is also not sustainable in law because the petitioner has raised issue of non-supply of Enquiry Report and also non-supply of relevant documents before the Enquiry Officer and it was dispute of 0.15 acres of land out of 2 acres of land only. He had taken the plea of not given opportunity to produce any defence witness. 76. Hence, the Appellate Order dated 07.04.2017 (i.e. Annexure-8) passed by the Appellate Authority i.e Director Personnel, C.C.L, Ranchi is set aside as despite having knowledge of fact that copy of Enquiry Report was neither served upon the petitioner nor the petitioner was given opportunity to produce the defence witnesses, and the Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal. 77. Under the circumstances, the dismissal order dated 25/28.07.2016 (i.e. Annexure-6) and the Appellate Order dated 02.04.2017 (i.e. Annexure-8) are set aside and the case is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e General Manager, Dhori Area to decide the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of six months by serving a copy of Enquiry Report and the documents relied upon by the Management and also the complaint made by the complainant and the petitioner should be given opportunity to produce the witnesses in support of his defence. (W.P(S) No. 4434 of 2018) 78. (W.P(S) No. 4434 of 2018) 78. Thus, the order dated 29.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service, is not sustainable in law as before passing the dismissal order, the Respondent CCL had neither served a copy of Enquiry Report nor served relevant document which had been relied upon by the Management nor the complaint filed by Jamuna Prasad Kewat was served to the writ petitioner. 79. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , and in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , the dismissal order dated 29.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7), passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. General Manager, Rajrappa Area, is set aside. 80. So far as Appellate Order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-9) passed by the Appellate Authority is concerned, the same is also not sustainable in law because the petitioner has raised issue regarding non-supply of Enquiry Report before the Disciplinary Authority and also non-supply of documents before the Enquiry Officer and it was dispute of 0.20 acres of land out of more than two (02) acres of land only. He had also taken the plea of not given opportunity to produce any defence witness. 81. Under the circumstances, the dismissal order dated 29.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) and the Appellate Order dated 13.01.2017(i.e. Annexure-9) are set aside and the case is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e General Manager, Rajrappa to decide the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of six months by serving a copy of Enquiry Report and the documents relied upon by the Management and also the documents of the complainant and the petitioner should be given opportunity to produce the witnesses in support of his case. [WP(S) No.4424 of 2018] 82. In view of the above, the dismissal order dated 23.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-7) passed by the Project Officer, Kathara Washery by which the original petitioner namely Hari Prasad Nayak has been dismissed from the service is set aside as copy of Enquiry Report was not served upon the petitioner and even the documents relied upon by the Management was not served upon him. 83. 83. Similarly, the Appellate order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Director Personnel, Appellate Authority is also set aside in view of the fact that the petitioner has specifically taken the plea of non-supply of Enquiry Report and non-supply of necessary documents during the enquiry proceeding and he was not allowed to produce the defence witnesses in support of his case. 84. Under the circumstances, the dismissal order dated 23.08.2018 (i.e. Annexure-7) and the Appellate Order dated 05.05.2017 (i.e. Anexure-9) are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Project Officer, Swang Colliery to pass the order afresh within a period of six months by serving a copy of the Enquiry Report, and the relevant documents which relying upon by the Management, to the legal heir of original petitioner Hari Prasad Nayak and also the complaint made by the complainant and the petitioner should be given opportunity to produce the witnesses in support of his case. [WP(S) No.4509 of 2018] 85. It transpires that vide order dated 07.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8) the services of the petitioner Bagwan Das Nayak has been dismissed from the service. 86. It transpires that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Agent- cum-Project Officer, Bokaro Colliery has merely stated about the Enquiry conducted against the petitioner, and receiving the report of the enquiry officer and also accepting the findings. The Enquiry Officer has passed the impugned order but neither the Khata No. nor the plot no. and nor the area of the land has been mentioned which was found to be fraudulently shown as adjusted by the petitioners and details of land have not been mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority. 87. It also reveals that even the Enquiry Report was not served upon the petitioner Bagwan Das Nayak. However, during the domestic enquiry neither any document was served upon the petitioner nor any witness was examined on behalf of the Management. 88. Thus, the dismissal order dated 07.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8) is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 89. Similarly, the Appellate Order dated 13.01.2017 is also not sustainable in view of the facts that the copy of Enquiry Report was not given to the petitioner and which was raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority in appeal but the same was not considered by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the Appellate order dated 13.01.2017 is also liable to be set aside. Thus, the Appellate order dated 13.01.2017 is also liable to be set aside. 90. Thus, the impugned order dated 07.06.2016 (i.e. Annexure-8) and the Appellate Order dated 13.01.2017 (i.e. Annexure-10) are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Project Officer, Bokaro Colliery to hold the enquiry afresh after giving a copy of Enquiry Report to the petitioner and also a copy of the documents on which the Management had relied upon which is said to be in custody of the CBI. The case is remitted back to the to decide the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of six months by serving a copy of Enquiry Report and the documents relied upon by the Management and also the complaint made by the complainant and the petitioner should be given opportunity to produce the witnesses in support of his defence. 91. Thus, all these writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted before the Disciplinary Authority for passing the fresh order in accordance with law except the punishment/termination/removal from the service after giving full opportunity to the writ petitioners and their legal heirs to produce the evidence and also supplying the Enquiry Report and necessary documents to the petitioners and their legal heirs and on which the Management is relying upon.