Jharkhand High Court
Harendra Kumar vs The Central Coalfields Limited on 25 March, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1482 of 2020
------
Harendra Kumar, son of late Kishun Singh, resident of MQ-4, G.M.
Colony, Dhori, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi.
2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga
House, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro.
4. The Project Officer, SDOCM, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields
Limited, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro.
5. The Staff Officer (P & A), Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro.
6. The Area Security Officer, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro.
7. The Sr. Manager(M)-cum-S.O. (Safety)-cum-Enquiry Officer,
Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo,
District Bokaro.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
------
10/ 25.03.2025
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondent - CCL.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside
the order of punishment as contained in Memo bearing Ref.
No.:GM(D)/PD/19-20/788 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ
petition), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service
after a proper departmental proceeding.
3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that
the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioner but the Disciplinary
Authority differed with the same. It is his contention that the reasons
for differing has not been provided to the petitioner and without
providing the reasons, the respondents could not have punished the
petitioner. He further submits that he has obtained employment as
the son-in-law of Shadul Ram, who has obtained VRS under the
Scheme floated by the Central Coalfields Limited. He further submits
that the principle of natural justice was not followed, as no proper
time was granted to the petitioner to give a reply to the second show
cause notice. On this ground, he prays to set aside the order of
punishment.
4. Learned counsel representing the respondent - CCL,
submits that this writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner
is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. As per
him, the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute. The petitioner
has directly approached this Court by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable.
He refers to the judgment reported in (2011) 2 SCC 585 (para-14).
He further submits that even if this Court entertains this writ petition,
the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, while deciding a writ petition involving punishment in a
departmental proceeding is very limited. The procedure has been
followed and thereafter the order of punishment has been passed.
He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of
obtaining employment by fraudulent means. If an appointment is
obtained by fraudulent means, it goes to the root of the case and his
appointment is void ab initio.
5. The respondents have raised a ground of alternative
remedy.
6. Since I have heard the parties at length and this writ
petition was filed in the year 2020 and is pending here, I am inclined
to hear this writ petition in the interest of justice.
7. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case
that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Coalfields Limited
after his father-in-law had obtained VRS. His father-in-law is Shadul
Ram. It was later on detected that the petitioner has obtained
employment by fraud as Shadul Ram, was not the father of his wife.
8. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and a
departmental proceeding was initiated. In the departmental
proceeding, the witnesses were examined including the wife of this
petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report. The report has
been brought on record as Annexure-C to the Counter Affidavit.
9. The enquiry report though is a bit vague but I find that
from the enquiry report, a fact which transpires that Sunita Singh is
the wife of this petitioner and as per the PAN Card of Sunita Singh,
the father's name of Sunita Singh is Tap Narayan Singh. Thus, the
Enquiry Officer came to a finding that the father's name of the wife
of this petitioner differs.
10. Once the enquiry report was submitted, the Disciplinary
Authority differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and served
a second show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure-D to the
counter affidavit), to the petitioner. In the second show cause notice,
it has been categorically mentioned that the Disciplinary Authority is
differing with the report of Enquiry Officer. The copy of the enquiry
report and the dissent note was sent along with the second show
cause notice to the petitioner. Though, the dissent note is not on
record but the ground on which the dissent was made has been
reproduced in the reasoned order which disposed the Departmental
Appeal. Para-6 is the dissent on which the Disciplinary Authority did
not agree with the enquiry report. The grounds are as follows:-
6) "The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the
Enquiry Report and issued following Dissent Note:
a. Sri. Harendra Kumar was appointed on 11.01.180
as a "Son-in-Law" of Late Shadul Ram, Ex-PRW,
Dhori Colliery under VR Scheme (by virtue of his
own admission).
b. That name of wife of Sri. Harendra Kumar is Mrs.
Sunita Singh as per ME-7C
c. That Sri. Harendra Kumar had only on wife namely
Smt. Sunita Singh
d. That as per PAN No. of Smt. Sunita Singh adduced
as ME during the enquiry her father name is Sri.
Tap Narayan Singh (ME-8)
e. That as per report of Sr. Nirdhan Bhardwaj,
Surpunch, Gram Panchayat, Hira J.P. Saranggadh,
Dist: Raygarh (Chhatisgarh) adduced during
enquiry as ME Sri. Shadul Ram, S/o- Sri. Mahesh
Ram, Village Hiri, Sarangadh has only one
daughter namely Smt. Budharin who has been
married at Orissal Badhagadh (ME-9)."
11. From the second show cause notice, I find that there is a
reference of this dissent note and it has been specifically mentioned
that this dissent note and the enquiry report are enclosed with the
second show cause notice and has been sent to this petitioner.
Nowhere in the writ petition, the petitioner has denied the fact that
the dissent note was not served upon the petitioner. Though, learned
counsel representing the petitioner orally argues that the petitioner
has not received the dissent note, yet from the petition, I find that
no such statement has been made in the writ petition. In absence of
such statement in the writ petition and also in view of the positive
averment in the second show cause notice that this dissent note is a
part of the second show cause notice, it is not proper to hold that
the petitioner was not served with the dissent note along with the
second show cause notice.
12. It is well settled that a Disciplinary Authority can differ
with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but the reasons have to be
communicated to the delinquent employee. In this case, the reasons
have been communicated. The reasons have been reproduced
hereinabove. From the reasonings therein, I find that the petitioner's
wife is Sunita Singh and in the PAN Card, the father's name of Sunita
Singh has been mentioned as Tap Narayan Singh. Further, in para-6
(e) of the dissent note, it has been mentioned that the witness who
is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hira, had deposed that Shadul Ram
had only one daughter whose name is Smt. Budharin and she has
been married at Orissa, Badhagadh. These facts have been taken
note of by the Disciplinary Authority while differing with the enquiry
report.
13. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the
second show cause notice but he prayed for time and ultimately did
not file the reply. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter found the
petitioner guilty of the charge of obtaining employment by
impersonation and dismissed him from service.
14. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, especially in judicial review, scope of
interference by this Court in the departmental proceeding is very
limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of "Director
General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus
Rajendra Kumar Dubey" reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954
at paragraph 37 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court
cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence,
which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao
[1963 AIR SC 1723], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it
is not the function of the High Court to review the findings and arrive
at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very
limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere where
the departmental authority has acted against the principles of
natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in
violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment
imposed is excessive, the Court can also interfere. It has also been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:-
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same
has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can
be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience.
15. Considering the aforesaid judgment and the facts and the
law that this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority, I find that
no illegality has been committed by the respondents in conducting
the departmental proceeding.
16. The impugned order as contained in Memo bearing Ref.
No.:GM(D)/PD/19-20/788 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ
petition) and the Appellate Order as contained in Memo bearing Ref
No.CCL/P&IR/Estt./2019-20/3712 dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-12),
cannot be interfered with. I find no merit in this writ petition.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant.Cp-2
AFR
