Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 10 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 4506 of 2016
Sanjay Kumar Singh --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Limited, through the
Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro
2. General Manager (Projects), Steel Authority of India
Limited Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
3. General Manager (Mechanical) & Disciplinary
Authority, Steel Authority of India
Limited Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
4. Deputy General Manager, In-charge, (Mechanical (Maintenance),
Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro
Steel Plant, Bokaro --- Respondents.
With
W.P (S) No. 5010 of 2016
Rajiv Chandra Jha --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. Steel Authority of India Limited, through the
Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
Steel City, Bokaro
2. General Manager (Projects), Steel Authority of India
Limited Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
3. General Manager (Mechanical) & Disciplinary
Authority, Steel Authority of India
Limited, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
4. Deputy General Manager, In-charge, (Mechanical (Maintenance),
Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro
Steel Plant, Bokaro --- Respondents.
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
---
For the Petitioner : Mrs. M.M.Pal, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Rukmini Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
----
03/10.05.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has
dismissed O.A. No. 051/00020 of 2015 and O.A. No. 051/00077 of 2015 by the
impugned judgment dated 27th November, 2015 and 16th December 2015
respectively refusing to interfere in the action of dismissal of the petitioners
from service taken by the respondent against the applicants. Petitioners being
aggrieved, are before this Court.
The relevant dates along with the Annexures in both the writ petitions
being common, are being narrated hereunder:
3. It is pertinent to mention at the outset that the applicants Sanjay Kumar
Singh and Rajiv Chandra Jha were appointed on 19th September, 2007 pursuant
to written examination held on 4th September, 2007 as Heavy Vehicles
Driver/Mobile Equipment Operator under advertisement published in June,
2007 by the respondents.
4. The charge-sheet, disagreement note, the order of disciplinary authority
and appellate authority are same and similar in case of both the writ petitioners.
They are being referred to hereunder.
Petitioner in WP(S) No. 4506/2016 Sanjay Kumar Singh faced
departmental proceeding vide Ref. No. 594 dated 5th March, 2011 for the
following charges:
CHARGESHEET
"You are hereby informed that you have rendered yourself
liable for disciplinary action for having committed the
following act of misconduct under Standing Orders of the
company:-
Giving false information regarding one's particulars for
the purpose of employment"
A statement of allegation on which the aforesaid charge is
based is enclosed. You are hereby directed to submit in
writing through proper channel, a statement of defence, if
any, to the undersigned within seven days from the date of
receipt of this charge-sheet, stating therein as to why you
should not be held guilty of the charge and suitably
punished. Provided that in case no statement is received
within seven days, it will be presumed that you have
nothing to state and further action will be taken as per
available records."
Petitioner in WP(S) No. 5010/2016 Rajiv Chandra Jha faced
departmental proceeding vide Ref. No. 2392 dated 7 th March 2011 for the
following charges:
CHARGESHEET
"You are hereby informed that you have rendered yourself
liable for disciplinary action for having committed the
following act of misconduct under Standing Orders of the
company:-
Giving false information regarding one's particulars for
the purpose of employment"
A statement of allegation on which the aforesaid charge is
based is enclosed. You are hereby directed to submit in
writing through proper channel, a statement of defence, if
any, to the undersigned within seven days from the date of
receipt of this charge-sheet, stating therein as to why you
should not be held guilty of the charge and suitably
punished. Provided that in case no statement is received
within seven days, it will be presumed that you have
nothing to state and further action will be taken as per
available records."
5. The disciplinary proceedings led to the order of dismissal from
service dated 16th November, 2012 (Annexure-9). Their appeals were also
rejected vide order dated 11th June, 2013. The Enquiry Officer held the charges
not proved vide report dated 27th January, 2012 (Annexure-6), but the
Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer vide
final Notice dated 6th October, 2012 (Annexure-7) and allowed them an
opportunity to represent. Being dissatisfied with their replies (Annexure-8), the
order of dismissal was passed on 16th November, 2012, wherein the
disciplinary authority held that after careful examination of their
representations submitted on 15th October, 2012 and other records, there did not
exist any extenuating circumstances in their favour. The disciplinary authority
therefore, on being satisfied that it is no more desirable in the interest of the
company to retain them in employment, dismissed them from service. The
Appellate Authority after going through the case of the delinquents and the
facts and circumstances of the case, refused to interfere in the order of
dismissal.
6. Be it noted herein that the basis for proceeding against the
petitioner was a vigilance inquiry as there was an apparent difference in
signature of the applicants in the counterfoil of answer-sheet submitted during
written examination and in their joining letters pursuant to their appointment.
Such discrepancy was found in the case of few other employees such as Lallan
Prasad, son of Sarabjit Prasad, Rohan Mahto, son of Shri Chandru Mahto. The
case of the petitioners, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Rajiv Chandra Jha stand on
identical footing and are placed on the same pedestal as that of Lallan Prasad
and Rohan Mahato. In all these cases, learned Tribunal has refused to interfere
in the order of dismissal pursuant to the departmental proceeding held on same
set of charges. Their signature in the counterfoil of answer-sheet and in the
joining report did not match as per report by the Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents (Directorate of Forensic Science).
7. It is not disputed by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that
the other employees such as Lallan Prasad and Rohan Mahato were dismissed
from service on the same findings that their signature on the counterfoil of
answer-sheet and in the joining report did not match as per the forensic report.
Both the aggrieved employees had also approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.
4095 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 3230 of 2017. Both the writ petitions were
dismissed vide judgments dated 30th June, 2017 and 22nd March, 2021 passed
by coordinate Bench of this Court latter being W.P.(S) No. 3230 of 2017, in
which (one of us Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) was also a member. Identical
grounds have been raised by the petitioners herein to assail the impugned order
of learned CAT refusing to interfere in the order of dismissal.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited Vs. Anguri
Khatoon & Ors. Reported in 2019 (3) JBCJ 179 [HC] on the point of
disagreement note by the disciplinary authority on the findings of the enquiry
officer exonerating the employee from the charges. Learned senior counsel for
the petitioner submits that when disagreement note containing tentative opinion
of the disciplinary authority is given, the delinquent employee should be
allowed opportunity to respond to the same before forming a final opinion in
the matter. If that is not done, the penalty order would be rendered illegal
having been passed in breach of the rules of natural justice. It is a requirement
under first proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioners has cited a number of judgments which were
also placed before the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lallan
Prasad and have been considered under paragraph-10 of the judgment.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer. It is
submitted that case of these petitioners stands on identical footing with that of
Lallan Prasad and Rohan Mahato, where all the points raised and canvassed by
the petitioner have been taken note of and negated. This being a case of proof
through scientific evidence, the learned Division Bench in the case of Lallan
Prasad went on to hold that the signature of the petitioner did not tally with
each other and it was crystal clear that it has been signed by different persons.
Thus it is a case of impersonation. Since fraud vitiate all solemn proceedings,
the appointment obtained by the petitioners on the basis of such false
information or impersonation becomes null and void ab-initio. Learned counsel
for the respondent submits that the plea raised on disagreement note by the
said petitioners has also been considered and declined taking note of the
judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of J.A. Naiksatam Vs.
Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court of Bombay and others reported
in (2004) 8 SCC 653. It is submitted that the judgments rendered by this Court
in the case of Lallan Prasad and Rohan Mahto have attained finality. Therefore,
there is no occasion for the petitioners to re-agitate the issues which have
attained finality in the case of similarly situated persons. The impugned order
of dismissal, as affirmed by learned CAT, therefore does not require
interference, as no tenable grounds on facts and law have been made out.
10. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties in the gamut of facts borne out from the records and also the decisions
rendered on the identical issue in the case of other similarly situated employees
such as Lallan Prasad and Rohan Mahto in W.P.(S) No. 4095 of 2016 and
W.P.(S) No. 4320 of 2017. The case of the present petitioners do not have any
distinguishable feature from the case of other two employees named. All of
them were appointees to the post of Mobile Equipment Operator/Heavy
Vehicle Driver pursuant to the same trade test held on 4th September, 2007. The
signature of these petitioners on the answer-sheet also did not tally with the
joining report which was discovered in a vigilance enquiry and confirmed by
forensic expert of the GEQD (Directorate of Forensic Sciences). The plea
raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioners regarding disagreement note
by the disciplinary authority has also been considered by this Court in the
aforesaid two judgments and squarely negated. The disagreement note of the
disciplinary authority in the present two cases at Annexure-7 dated 6th October,
2012 also shows that these petitioners were granted opportunity to make their
representations in defence of their case and only after consideration of their
reply, the order of dismissal was passed. On facts also, therefore, this point is
not tenable in the case of the present petitioners.
11. Since, we do not find any distinguishable features in the case of the
present petitioners from that of Lallan Prasad and Rohan Mahto, we are of the
considered view that the ratio rendered by this court in the case of Lallan
Prasad and Rohan Mahto apply to the case of the present petitioners. We
therefore do not want to burden this judgment with the same authorities as have
been duly considered by this Court in the case of Lallan Prasad and Rohan
Mahto.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any grounds to interfere in
the impugned orders. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J)
jk/
