Jharkhand High Court
Purushottam Kumar vs Coal India Limited on 9 June, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:14802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.3579 of 2020
------
Purushottam Kumar, son of Sri Manoj Kumar, resident of Village
Maranchi, P.O. & P.S. Maranchi, District Patna, Bihar-803301.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Coal India Limited, Coal Bhawan, Premise No.4 MAR, Plot No.AF-
III, AA-1A, New Town, P.S. Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156, represented
through Chairman.
2. The Central Coalfields Limited, having office at Darbhanga House,
Ranchi, P.O. NCDC, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, represented
through Chairman.
3. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Medical Superintendent/Head of the
Hospital, Referal Hospital, Mokama, Patna, P.O. & P.S. Mokama,
District Patna, Bihar-803302;
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On : 18.03.2025 Pronounced on : 09/06/2025 By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for following reliefs:-
"1. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the termination order bearing reference number CIL/RECTT./MT/TERMINATION/2699 dated 22.09.2020/05.10.2020 (Annexure-27) issued by the Respondent No. 1, whereby and where under the service of the Petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect holding that the Petitioner has submitted fake PwD certificate during the time of Document verification an IME on the basis of which he secured employment in CIL.
AND For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order(s) or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of 1 2025:JHHC:14802 Mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 to reinstate the Petitioner into the service with all consequential benefit including the payment of arrears of salary to the Petitioner from the date of his termination to the date of reinstatement;"
2. Facts of the case giving rise to filing of present writ petition are that an advertisement was floated by Coal India Ltd. being Advertisement No.02/2017 for the post of Management Trainees. Clause-8 (i) of the said advertisement provides for reservation and relaxation for the candidates appearing under PwD Category. The petitioner while filing the application form uploaded his disability certificate issued by respondent No.3 indicating the percentage of disability to be to the tune of 45% which is more than the prescribed benchmark of 40% as provided in the advertisement. The petitioner was issued admit card and consequently he appeared in the examination and thereafter being shortlisted, he appeared for the interview where he was informed that his disability certificate was not in the prescribed format and he was handed over a format of the same to be submitted at the time of joining. The result was declared on 05.10.2017 and being successful, he was issued the letter of appointment dated 04.12.2017. As per direction in the appointment letter, he reported before the authorities of the Indian Institute of Coal Management (IICM) and submitted all his documents. Thereafter he was subjected to medical test and after being declared medically fit, he successfully completed induction training. Subsequently, vide letter dated 17.02.2018 he was posted in the Central Coalfield Ltd., Ranchi.
On 21.02.2019 the petitioner was served with a show cause issued by respondent No.1 with allegation of furnishing false / 2 2025:JHHC:14802 fake document in order to obtain employment. The document in question was the disability certificate.
The petitioner gave his reply on 04.03.2019 and on 13.05.2019 he was served with a notice whereby he was advised to report to Indira Vihar Health Centre for medical examination, where he reported. Further he was served with another notice dated 30.08.2019 for medical examination by medical board in the office of District Civil Surgeon, Gardanibagh, where he also reported. On 26.11.2019, he was served with a second show cause which he immediately replied denying all allegations. It was alleged that the deviation was found in the percentage of disability. So far as deviation in percentage of disability is concerned, he urged for seeking opinion from Higher Competent Authority. When the petitioner did not receive any reply, being aggrieved by the report of District Civil Surgeon, he preferred an appeal before the Director in Chief, Health Department, Patna, who constituted a State Level Medical Board for medical examination which examined the petitioner on 18.02.2020 and served him a medical report wherein the disability was declared as 45%. The said report was submitted to the respondent vide letter dated 05.03.2020. Finally, vide impugned order, the petitioner was terminated.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the termination order passed by respondent No.1 is perverse and non- tenable in the eyes of law as in spite of submitting all genuine documents he was terminated. He further submitted that nowhere in the report of the CMO, Referral Hospital, Mokama, it has been remotely suggested that the disability certificate furnished by 3 2025:JHHC:14802 petitioner is fake and same has not been issued by the verifying Authority. He further submitted that there is violation of natural justice as no proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner to defend his case.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondent - Coal India submitted that the disability certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification and as per the report of the issuing Authority dated 28.12.2018, there is no evidence of issuance of any such PwD Certificate, as submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, show cause was issued and as the reply was found unsatisfactory, second show cause was issued to the petitioner for submitting a fake certificate. As the petitioner could not establish his innocence nor the genuineness of the certificate, he was terminated after following the procedure.
5. From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, I find that the issues raised in this writ petition by the Respondents are:-
(i) Furnishing false and fabricated certificate of disability at the time of entering in service, and
(ii) The disability of the petitioner was below the threshold level to get employment.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a person with disability. The petitioner at the time of application, uploaded his disability certificate showing the same to be issued from the office of the Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Mokama, Patna. The disability percentage mentioned in the said certificate is 45%. The benchmark which was provided in the advertisement was 40%.
7. It is the case of the respondents that the certificate of the petitioner is forged and fake and the disability of the petitioner is in fact much less than 40%.
4
2025:JHHC:14802
8. In this case, the Chief Medical Officer-cum-Superintendent of Referral Hospital, Mokama, was noticed. He has appeared and filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, the said respondent has clearly accepted that they had issued the disability certificate. Once the Issuing Authority has accepted that they had issued the disability certificate and the same has been accepted by them by filing an affidavit before this Court to that effect, then no occasion arises to doubt the genuineness of the said certificate.
9. The next issue is the percentage of disability. As held earlier, in the certificate which has been issued by the office of respondent No.3, which has been accepted to be genuine, the percentage of disability was shown as 45%. The respondents presuming the certificate to be fake, subjected the petitioner for further medical examination, wherein his disability was assessed below 40%. The re-examination of the petitioner was on the basis of presumption that the certificate was fake. Once it has been held that the certificate was not fake, then percentage of disability which was mentioned in the said certificate on the date of his examination should be accepted, wherein the percentage of disability was much above the requisite threshold.
10. It is not a case, that the petitioner is a person without any disability. The employer also admit that the petitioner is a person with disability but as per the respondents, the percentage of disability is less than 40%.
11. Be it noted that re-examination of the petitioner was done at a much later stage. Due to passage of time, the percentage of disability may fluctuate but the fact remains that what was the 5 2025:JHHC:14802 disability on the date of application, is of prime consideration. On the date of application, the disability percentage was 45% which is admittedly much higher than the threshold limit, which is 40% in this case. When the certificate is not fake, the respondents cannot also doubt the percentage of disability which the petitioner had submitted at the time of application.
12. Thus, I find merit in this writ petition. In view of the affidavit filed by respondent No.3, the genuineness of disability certificate of the petitioner cannot be doubted nor the percentage of disability mentioned therein. The impugned order of termination bearing Ref. No.:CIL/RECTT./MT/Termination/2699 dated 22.09.2020/05.10.2020 (Annexure-27 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. The period during which the petitioner was out of service should be counted for all practical purpose including post retiral benefits, treating the petitioner deemed to be in service. So far as back wages are concerned, considering the peculiar facts of this case the petitioner is also entitled to get the consequential benefits of back wages.
13. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) 09/06/2025 HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Prashant AFR 6