Ram Nandan Nonia vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3381 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ram Nandan Nonia vs Central Coalfields Limited Through Its ... on 20 March, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 L.P.A. No. 591 of 2024
                            ---

Ram Nandan Nonia, aged about 57 years, Son of Late Ramdeo Nonia, Resident of 42 Number Colony, Qr. No. AV-31, P.O.Tapin, P.S. Mandu (Charhi), District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. .....Appellant

Versus

1. Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-Cum-

Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.

2. Director Personnel, Central Coalfields Limited, having office at Darbhanga House, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.

3. Senior Personnel Officer, Tapin Project, Central Coalfields Limited, having office at Tapin, P.O.-Tapin, P.S.-Mandu District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

4. Project Officer, Tapin Project, Central Coalfields Limited, having office at Tapin, P.O.- Tapin, P.S.-Mandu, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

5. Colliery Manager, Tapin Project, Central Coalfields Limited, having office at Tapin, P.O. Tapin, P.S.-Mandu, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. .....Respondents

---

CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                          ---
For the Appellant      : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                        Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp.-CCL      : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
                         Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
                             ---
02/ Dated: 20.03.2025

1. This application is ordered since it is not opposed by

the respondents.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated

31.07.2024 in W.P.(S) No.3206 of 2019 of the learned Single

Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant

challenging an order dated 04.09.2018 passed by the

4th respondent terminating the services of the petitioner with

effect from 07.03.2003.

3. The learned Single Judge declined to grant relief to

the appellant on the ground that he had been absent from service

for a period of eight months without informing the respondents;

and that the appellant had been convicted and remained in

judicial custody for 10 years till he was later acquitted by the

Appellate Court in a case filed under Section 302 of I.P.C in which

he was arrested on 23.09.1999.

4. It cannot be expected of an employer to wait for such

a long period for an employee when he has not even informed

about him being arrested for a period of eight months and when

he is not able to join employment for a period of 10 years during

which period he was in judicial custody. Therefore, we do not find

any merit in the appeal.

5. It is accordingly, dismissed. No cost.

(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) jk/vikas