Writ Petition (S) No. 4569 of 2008
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
---------
Rambali Mahto ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Coal Fields Limited through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Ranchi
2. General Manager, (P & IR), Central Coalfields Ltd., Ranchi
3. Chief General Manager, Charhi Area, C.C.L., Hazaribagh
4. Personnel Manager, Kedla Open Cast Project, Ramgarh
5. Shri R.B.Tiwari, Deputy Chief Staff Officer(H)/Charhi, CCL
6. Shri S.K.Singh, Personnel Manager, Charhi, C.C.L., Hazaribagh
7. Shri Sanjay Sinha, Senior Personnel, Kedla Open Cast Project,
C.C.L.
8. Mukund Oraon
9. Sawna Oraon ...... Respondents
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate
For the C.C.L.: Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate
---------
th
Dated 7 January'10
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
D.N.PATEL,J. The present petition has been preferred by an
employee of the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd., who was
working as Class IV employee from 18th December, 1973 and who
has retired on 22nd March, 2002, after putting the services of 29
long years. Never any objection was raised by the respondents
about this Class IV employee about his nature of work or for any
reason, whatsoever. Thus, the petitioner has worked sincerely,
diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents,
without any stigma attached to his service career. After his
retirement, a so called complaint has been received from some
complainant, who has never been examined by the Inquiring
Officer, and after retirement of the petitioner-employee, a report
has been submitted by the Inquiring Officer on 10th July, 2007
(Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner was really
never appointed as Class IV employee and there is impersonation
by the petitioner in the year, 1973 and thereafter. Thus, all the
retirement benefits have been withheld by the respondents, only on
this ground and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred
by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted
that the petitioner has always remained obedient Class IV
employee and he has worked to the satisfaction of the respondents.
Never any show cause notice has been issued nor any objection
2
has been raised about the petitioner nor for his working style.
Moreover, in all service records, the name and photograph of the
petitioner have been attached in several documents, which are in
the custody of the respondents, like:
(a) Service Register;
(b) Identity Card;
(c) Gratuity Nomination Form-F
(d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form-A
3. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that these are the documents, which are in custody and
knowledge and possession of the respondent-Management. Some
documents have been further forwarded to the Provident Fund or
Pension authorities. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that still there are documents with the respondents
of the petitioner, who has worked for 29 long years, but, they are
without photographs, like; Leave Report, Sick Report etc. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no
question of any impersonation, whatsoever. The petitioner is the
son of Karu Mahto and even his father was also serving in Kedla
Mines (before nationalization). Time and again the petitioner has
stated that he has never visited his birth place and the petitioner
had to remain with his father at difference places and, therefore,
matching of the retirement time photograph or a photograph in the
service records, in a particular village before some villagers is not a
correct evidence that the petitioner is not Rambali Mahto son of
Karu Mahto. There was enough time with the respondents, right
from 1973 to 2002 to verify all the facts, which are stated in the
service records, but, never any objection has been raised by
anyone, much less by the respondent-Management and after his
peaceful retirement, on a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint,
unnecessarily the petitioner’s retirement benefits have been
withheld.4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that firstly the complainant has never been examined by the
Inquiring Officer and secondly, two co-employees, namely, Govind
Munda and Shankar Par, have already stated that the petitioner
has worked as a Class IV employee from 1978 onwards with the
respondents and this aspect of the matter has not been properly
appreciated by the Inquiring Officer and the Inquiring Officer has
only relied upon the statements, made by some persons of Village-
Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village- Soso and that too, upon
3showing a photograph of the petitioner. Petitioner is not knowing
which photograph was shown to whom, upon whose statements,
much reliance has been placed by the Inquiring Officer nor the
petitioner was kept present at the said two villages. Even an
opportunity of cross-examining the said person/persons of Village-
Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village- Soso was never given to the
petitioner. Thus, what question was asked to whom and that too
by showing what photograph has not been brought at the
touchstone of the cross-examination. Thus, the evidence upon
which inquiry report is based, is no evidence at all, whereas, as
stated hereinabove, two co-employees have given depositions in
favour of the petitioner and in absence of examination of the
complainant, the report of the Inquiring Officer, which is dated
10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) is based upon
no evidence and is non-est, which has been concluded much after
the retirement of the petitioner i.e. after March, 2002 onwards. It is
also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is never willing to go within the campus of the
respondents, as he has already retired and after retirement, no
question of further misuse of any fund, whatsoever, arises and, in
fact, the petitioner has worked sincerely, honestly, diligently and to
the satisfaction of the respondents for 29 long years and, therefore,
by quashing and setting aside the order of the Inquiring
Officer/Committee dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo
of petition), let the respondents be directed to make payment of the
legally payable retirement benefits under different headings, like;
Provident Fund, Pension, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, and such
other legally payable benefits.5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
submitted that the petitioner is not the son of Karu Mahto and he
has served for all 29 years by impersonating himself and this fact
has been revealed after retirement of the present petitioner, upon a
complaint made by somebody and, thereafter, in pursuance of an
order, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 (disposed
of on 25th April, 2007), which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of
petition, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and the Inquiry
Committee has arrived at a conclusion vide its report dated 10th
July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner
is not the son of Karu Mahto and, therefore, in pursuance of the
order, passed in the aforesaid writ petition at Annexure 6 to the
memo of petition, the actions have been initiated by forfeiting all
4the retirement benefits, mainly on the ground of impersonation,
right from the very beginning and, therefore, this writ petition
deserved to be dismissed in limine.6. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:(i) The petitioner was employed as a Class IV employee with
the respondents on 18th December, 1973 and he was
working to the satisfaction of the respondents till he reached
the age of superannuation i.e. on 22nd March, 2002. Thus,
the petitioner has served for 29 long years and never any
objection has been raised by the respondents about
impersonation of the petitioner nor about the working style
of the petitioner and never any dissatisfaction has been
reflected by the respondents towards the services, rendered
by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has worked with the
respondents right from December, 1973 to March, 2002
sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the
respondents and without having any stigma to his service
records;(ii) After petitioner’s retirement, some undated complaint
was received by the respondent-Management on 4th July,
2002. Thereafter, unending inquiry was started, but,
meanwhile the respondents withheld the payment of
retirement benefits of the petitioner and, therefore, a writ
petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 was instituted by
the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court vide
order dated 25th April, 2007 (Annexure 6 to the memo of
petition), wherein, it was ordered that a long drawn inquiry
ought to be completed within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if it was not so
completed. The relevant part of the said order dated 25th
April, 2007 in W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 reads as under:“In the circumstances, the General Manager (P &
IR), CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi (respondent no.3)
is directed to see that the committee enquires into the
matter and takes a decision, if not already taken,
within three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order and
communicate the same to the petitioner. If any
decision has already been taken, the same be
communicated to the petitioner immediately. If it is
5found that petitioner is genuine claimant and he has
not impersonated, it goes without saying that his
claims should be processed and paid in accordance
with law without any delay.
With these observations and directions, this writ
petition is disposed of.”
(iii) Thus, in view of the aforesaid observation, the petition
was disposed of and a long drawn inquiry was bound to be
completed thereafter and a report was given by the Inquiring
Committee on 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of
petition), wherein, it has been held that the present
petitioner was not the son of Karu Mahto and there was
impersonation. Thus, after retirement of the petitioner from
22nd March, 2002, the inquiry was concluded on 10th July,
2007. Thus, after several years the report has been given at
Annexure 8 to the memo of petition;
(iv) Now looking closely to the report of the Inquiring
Officer, it appears that a photograph of the present petitioner
was shown to some of the villagers of Village- Khajawati
(Bodhgaya) and of Village- Soso, where some villagers, on the
basis of their observations, memory and reproduction, gave
evidence that the person in the photograph is not the son of
Karu Mahto and Karu Mahto was having only two sons and
there is no third son like Rambali Mahto. Mainly on this
basis, a report has been submitted after several years from
retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was employed on
18th December, 1973 and the report of impersonation comes
in July, 2007.
(v) It also appears that:
(a) There is co-employee, who was examined, namely,
Govind Munda, who has given deposition in favour of the
petitioner that this very petitioner, who is Rambali Mahto
son of Karu Mahto, has worked as Class IV employee from
1978 onwards i.e. from the date of his knowledge;
(b) Likewise, deposition has been given by oneShankar
Par, who has also stated before the Inquiring Committee that
the present petitioner, who is Rambali Mahto son of Karu
Mahto, has served for several years with the respondents
and was co-employee with him;
6
(c) The so-called complainant, who is alleged to have
filed the complaint, after retirement of the petitioner, has
never been examined;
(d) It has been stated by the petitioner as per the
inquiry report that he has never visited these villagers from
where the statements have been recorded of some persons
upon whom much reliance has been placed by the
respondents by showing a photograph of the petitioner;
(e) No opportunity of cross-examining those villagers of
Village- Khajawati (Bodhgaya) as well as of Village- Soso has
been given to the petitioner. Thus, what photograph was
shown to those villagers, whose statements were recorded
and who are they, everything has been kept in dark and
such statements have not been allowed to be tested at the
touchstone of the cross-examination, which is a most vital
part of the inquiry, especially when any inquiry is being
conducted after 29 long years’ services of the petitioner and
that too after his retirement. The present photograph or the
photograph of 1973 from service records of the petitioner
may not be matched with the memory of those villagers. All
these depend upon capacity of observation, memory and
reproduction of any witness, when he is giving statement.
This aspect of the matter, which affects the very root of the
case has been lost sight of and a Class IV employee has been
saddled with a stigma that from 1973 there was
impersonation, which has been found out in the month of
July, 2007 and that too with the aforesaid open ended
inquiry or by let loosing crucial aspects of the inquiry.
(v) It ought to be kept in mind by the respondent-
Management that whenever Class IV employee has worked
sincerely, diligently, honestly and to their satisfaction and
that too, for approximately three long decades, upon a
frivolous complaint, which is absolutely undated and the
complainant is not ready to come forward to give evidence, in
such a situation it is always advisable to decide the case in
favour of their honest, sincere and diligent employees, who
have proved their metal, especially when they are Class IV
employees.
(vi) In view of several documents like:
(a) Service Register;
(b) Identity Card;
7
(c) Gratuity Nomination Form-F
(d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form-A
which reveal photograph as well as name of the petitioner,
there were enough opportunities with the respondents from
1973 to 2002 to verify the data of the petitioner. The service
book is being signed, every year by the high-ranking officer
of the respondent-C.C.L.
(vii) Looking to the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no
impersonation. Petitioner is a son of Karu Mahto. He has
served for 29 long years, as legally and validly appointed
peon.
7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I
hereby hold that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiring
Committee dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of
petition) is non-est, as crucial evidence has not been appreciated
and considered whereas irrelevant evidence has been considered.
States of witnesses upon which reliance has been placed, were
never presented for cross-examination and, thus, the inquiry
report is based upon no evidence and, therefore, I hereby quash
and set aside the said report, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo
of petition, and I hereby direct the respondents to make payment
of all the legally payable retirement benefits, including, Coal Mines
Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment, if any, and
such other benefits, as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ
petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 7th January, 2010
A.K.Verma/ N.A.F.R.