Central Coalfields Limited (A ... vs Suresh Kumar Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2818 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
                       L.P.A. No. 36 of 2022

    1. Central Coalfields Limited (a subsidiary of Coal India Limited),
       through its Chairman cum Managing Director, having its office at
       Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District
       Ranchi, through its Authorized Signatory - Partha Bhattacharjee,
       aged about 58 years, son of Late P.C. Bhattacharjee, resident of 34,
       Pragati Enclave, Dibdih, Beside Bye-Pass Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S.
       Doranda, District Ranchi
    2. The General Manager, Argada Sirka, P.O. Sirka, P.S. Giddi A,
       District Hazaribagh
    3. Senior Personnel Officer, Religare Colliery, P.O. Religara, P.S. Giidi
       A, District Hazaribagh.
    4. Staff Officer (M)(A), Sirka Colliery, P.O. Sirka, P.S. Giddi A,
       District Hazaribagh            ...    ... Respondents/Appellants
                               Versus
      Suresh Kumar Singh, son of Late Ram Swarup Singh @ Ram Swarup
      Choudhary, presently working as Piece Rated Employee, resident of
      Argada Colliery, Argada Area, P.O. Argada, P.S. Argada, District
      Hazaribagh.                     ...     ...       Petitioner/ Respondent
                               ---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
        HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
                               ---
      For the Appellants       : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
      For the Respondent       : None
                               ---
                                                          ORDER

Dated: 11th August 2023

Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.01.2021 passed in W.P. (S) No. 7721 of 2006, whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order of punishment, the appellate order as well as the subsequent orders have been quashed and set- aside and the appellants have been directed to give all consequential benefits to the respondent in accordance with law and company rules considering his date of birth as 05.02.1960 instead of 15.04.1958.

2. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs: -

"A) The punishment order dated 11/12.04.2002 issued by the Respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been demoted to the post of Peace rated worker by way of punishment (Ann-9) be quashed.

B) The Respondents be directed not to give effect to the punishment order dated 11/12.04.2002 and to treat him as a regular time rated employee and to give all consequential benefits thereof.

C) The appellate order dated 25.09.2004 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer, Religora (Ann-10) be quashed.

D) The respondents be directed not to give effect the rejection order dated 25.09.2004 and be directed to treat the petitioner as a regular T.R. Mazdoor as he was never been demoted.

E) Any other relief or relief to which the petitioner is entitled to. ]

F) The order dt. 26/27.4.2022 issued by the Staff Officer (P), Sirka for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.04.1958 in all statutory records pertaining to his date of birth (Ann-12) be quashed. G) The respondents be directed not to give effect to the order dt. 26/27.4.2002 and to allow the petitioner to continue to his service till the age of 60 years on the basis of his date of birth i.e. 05.02.1960 recorded in his matriculation certificate.

H) The order dt. 20.11.17 (Ann-14) be quashed and allow him to continue this service till the attaining the age of 60 years."

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was initially appointed as piece rated labour on 05.07.1978 and at the time of appointment his date of birth was recorded as 15.04.1958. Later on, when the respondent received the matriculation certificate, he made request to the appellants to correct the date of birth as 05.02.1960 and accordingly, his date of birth was changed to 05.02.1960. Suddenly, in the year 1998, a charge-sheet was issued to the respondent alleging that his date of birth was determined as 15.04.1958 at the time of his initial appointment and the matriculation certificate produced by the respondent showing the date of birth as 05.02.1960 was of a different person. The following three charges were levelled against the respondent:

"1) That at the time of your appointment as a Coal Cutter on 5.7.1978 against the voluntary retirement of your father Sri Ramswarup Singh, your age as determined at the initial medical examination i.e. 15.4.1958 was recorded in your service sheet which was accepted by you by means of putting your LTI in the service sheet. That later on, you produced a matriculation certificate, stating to be that of yours and got your date of birth changed from 15.4.1958 to 5.2.1960 on the basis of the date of birth recorded/mentioned therein i.e. Matriculation certificate.

2) That in fact, the said matriculation, as produced by you stating to be that of yours, belonged to one Shri Suresh Choudhary.

3) That again on the basis of aforesaid false and forged matriculation certificate produced by you, you managed to get your services regularised as Asstt. Store Keeper w.e.f. 25.1.1981."

4. So far as the enquiry report is concerned, the aforesaid charge Nos. 2 and 3, which related to allegation of production of forged matriculation certificate, were found to be not proved. So far as aforesaid charge No. 1 is concerned, the same was held to be proved.

However, on perusal of charge No. 1, this Court finds that it was also primarily based on the matriculation certificate produced by the respondent and it was stated as a matter of fact that the date of birth of the respondent was mentioned/determined as 15.04.1958 at the time of entry in service.

5. The disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and issued second show cause to the respondent and clearly recorded that as per the enquiry report, the charge was partially proved. The respondent filed his reply to the second show cause and punishment of demotion/reduction in rank was imposed and consequently his date of birth has been treated as 15.04.1958 instead of 05.02.1960.

6. The writ Court referred to the judgement passed by this Court in Kamta Pandey vs. B.C.C.L. through Chairman-cum-Managing Director reported in (2007) 3 JLJR 726 wherein it has been held that the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate is conclusive proof of the age. The writ Court also found that the orders impugned, whether it was the punishment order or the appellate order, were unreasoned order. The writ Court recorded undisputed finding of fact that the charge-sheet was issued after 20 years of service of the respondent, whereas the respondent had submitted his matriculation certificate with the Management way back in the year 1978-79. The writ Court also recorded that as per the enquiry report, charge Nos. 2 and 3 were not proved and the Inquiry Officer stated that charge No. 1 was proved. The writ Court was of the considered view that charge No. 1 did not appear to be any offence, rather it was a fact, inasmuch as, initially the respondent was appointed and his date of birth was mentioned in the service sheet taking into account medical examination and medical fitness certificate and the moment the respondent received the matriculation certificate, he applied for correction of his date of birth. The writ Court recorded that the said application by the respondent seeking correction of his date of birth was not made at the fag end of his service. At the first instance the respondent had requested the Management to correct his date of birth as 05.02.1960 in place of 05.04.1958 and accordingly, his date of birth

was changed to 05.02.1960 and he was also given promotion on the basis of his matriculation certificate.

7. The writ Court allowed the writ petition considering the judgement passed in the case of Kamta Pandey (Supra) and since the respondent has already retired from service having crossed the age of 60 years, he was held to be entitled for all consequential benefits. The order of punishment as well as the appellate order and all subsequent orders were quashed and set aside.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there were disputed questions of facts involved in the writ petition which could not have been adjudicated in a writ proceeding and further the writ Court was not justified in granting all consequential benefits to the respondent in spite of the fact that the respondent had already attained the age of retirement treating his date of birth as 05.02.1960 and did not work thereafter.

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the foundational facts of the writ petition were neither in dispute in the writ proceedings nor the same are in dispute in this appeal. The fact remains that the date of birth of the respondent was originally recorded as 15.04.1958 and way back in the year 1978-79 the date of birth was corrected as 05.02.1960 on the basis of matriculation certificate of the respondent and after 20 years a charge- sheet was issued to the respondent alleging that his matriculation certificate was forged but this allegation was found to be not proved in the enquiry report which was duly accepted by the disciplinary authority and punishment was imposed on the basis of charge No.1 which was also closely linked with the allegation that the matriculation certificate was forged. It is also not the case of the appellants that the respondent has asked for correction of date of his date of birth at the fag end of his service.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ Court has rightly set-aside the order of punishment, the appellate order and all other consequential orders. The allegation in connection with forged matriculation certificate was not proved in the enquiry and the Management had earlier acted upon the

matriculation certificate as produced by the respondent. This Court is of the considered view that the age of the respondent as recorded by the Management in the records as 05.02.1960 has been rightly taken to be the date of birth of the respondent instead of 15.04.1958.

11. So far as the consequential reliefs are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the difference in the period is less than two years and once the very basis of the allegation in charge-sheet is found to be not proved, the order of punishment has been rightly set-aside with all consequential reliefs. The writ Court has exercised sound discretion while granting the consequential reliefs and the same does not call for any interference. This Court finds no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.

12. Pending interlocutory application; if any, is closed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul