Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harish Tandon, J.
Arun Kumar Mukherjee - Appellant
Vs.
Coal India Limited and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. 842 of 2014
Decided On : 14-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Partha Guha
For the Respondents: Alok Kumar Mukherjee, S.M. Obaidullah, Partha Basu
The main legal point established in the judgment is that providing false and incorrect information at the time of employment can lead to disciplinary action, and specific and definite charges are required for such disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Employment - Mines Act - Rules - [Mines Act, Rules, Standing Orders] - The court discussed the issue of incorrect date of birth provided by the employee at the time of employment, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the employee, and the termination of the employee's service. The court analyzed the legal provisions related to the authority's power to take disciplinary action, the requirement for specific and definite charges, and the impact of delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. The court found that the employee's date of birth provided at the time of employment was false and incorrect, and the charges against the employee were specific and definite. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the employee's plea.
Fact of the Case:
The employee challenged the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, which culminated in an order of dismissal, based on the incorrect date of birth provided by him at the time of employment. The employee's service was terminated, and the employee approached the court to set aside the order of dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee's date of birth provided at the time of employment was false and incorrect, and the charges against the employee were specific and definite. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the employee's plea.
Issues: The issues involved the correctness of the date of birth provided by the employee at the time of employment, the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, and the termination of the employee's service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employee's date of birth provided at the time of employment was false and incorrect, and the charges against the employee were specific and definite. The court also found that there was no merit in the employee's plea.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the employee's plea.
Harish Tandon, J.
1. The employee beleaguered with the undisputed facts has challenged the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, which culminated into an order of dismissal, in the instant Writ Petition. The arguments are advanced in this behalf on several proposition of law, some may carry relevance whereas others completely foreign and alien to the facts and circumstances of this case. The abstract proposition of law is agitated before the Court without considering whether those can at all be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. A large number of decisions are cited purely on the question of law without making any attempt to find out whether those have any nexus with the undisputed facts of the case. The Court is constrained to deal with those points and deal with the judgments relied upon by the respective Counsels as the avoidance may populate a sense in the mind of the litigant that his case has not been determined in proper manner.
2. The sense becomes stronger when the proceeding relates to a dismissal from service having serious repercussion on the livelihood of a person. An unsuccessful employee, who lost in all tiers of remedy provided under the Service Rules, has approached this Court in challenging the disciplinary proceeding, which ended in order of dismissal for setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority on various grounds including that the authority which passed the order of dismissal is not competent to do so in view of Office Order dated July 17th, 2000 issued by the Eastern Coal Field (ECL) Limited.
3. The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner was provided an employment under land looser scheme by Eastern Coal Field Limited Authority and appointment letter was issued on 23.11.1993 by the Personal Manager, Bankolka Area upon getting the due approval from the competent authority. The Petitioner disclosed his date of birth as 10.08.1961 at the time of seeking such employment. After such appointment, the service book was prepared, which includes Form 'B' prescribed in the Mines Act and Rules and the particulars recorded therein should be verified by the employee and to certify that the information recorded therein are true and correct.
4. Admittedly, the Petitioner confirmed and certified his date of birth as 10.08.1961 recorded in the service book by putting his signature. It is nobody's case that the Petitioner did not discharge his duties diligently and with responsibility and there is no allegation against him in this regard. It is also admitted fact that the younger brother of the Petitioner, namely, Milan Kumar Mukherjee is also an employee of Shyamsundarpur Colliery under ECL. The said younger brother also incorporated his personal details/information including the date of birth in the service book and in the said prescribed form. A complaint was received by the Chairman cum Managing Director of the Cold Field that the Petitioner secured the employment by giving a wrong date of birth and a suitable action should be taken against him. The said complaint was forwarded to the Vigilance Department of the Coal Field and an investigation was started.
5. The younger brother of the Petitioner was called by the Vigilance Department and after recording his statements and verifying his service records, they arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner is guilty of giving incorrect/wrong date of birth and such report was forwarded to the management, who subsequently issued a charge sheet under certified standing order and sought a written explanation from the Petitioner as to why the disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. It is pertinent to record that the said charge sheet was issued by the Manager, Shyamsundarpur Colliery on 24/29.06.2011. The Articles of charges which leads to a serious misconduct recorded therein are as follows:-
"26.1 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Employers busine
