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
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 /
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
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%.
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
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
