The appointment being void ab initio precludes the petitioner from claiming reinstatement and other benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.02.2009 issued by respondent No.5, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated and also the appellate order dated 01.10.2009 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

The petitioner has also prayed for reinstatement of his service with back-wages and other consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ application is that petitioner was initially appointed on 05.09.1980 to the post of Piece Rated Employee under the VRS for male workers wherein there is a provision for employment of the dependent in case of male employee applied for VRS. When the petitioner was performing his duties to the post of Munshi, a charge-sheet dated 10.12.1998 was issued to him alleging that he obtained employment claiming himself to be his son-in-law of one “Sado” although he did not have any such family relationship with him. For proper appreciation of this case, the charge-sheet issued against this petitioner is quoted herein below in para 11 of counter-affidavit:-

“11. That it is stated that in the year 1998, petitioner was issued a charge-sheet dated 10.12.1998 alleging the commission of following acts of misconduct:

(i) “That under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of CCL, you obtained employment in Sirka Colliery as P.R. Worker vide appointment letter No. GM(A/P/Vol.Rectt/80/SRK/18988 dated 05.09.1980 against the voluntary retirement of Sri Sado, Coal Cutter by declaring yourself to be his son-in-law, although you did not have any such family relationship with him. By such fraudulent means you got employment at Sirka Collierty in connivance with Sri. Sado and the then dealing officer of Sirka Colliery and G.M.Office, Argada Area.

(ii) That you are Gareri by Caste having the surname ‘Pal’ and the name of your father is Sri Jhuri, r/o village Piparia, P.O. Chhebari, Distt. Rohtas, whereas Sri Sado belongs to Munda Scheduled Tribe and he never married his daughter to you. After entering into the service of CCL, you got your surname ‘Pal’ recorded in the service sheet and other records.

Thus, you have fraudulently entered into the services of CCL on 08.09.80 and have since been illegally on the pay roll of the company.”

4. The aforesaid charges constituted misconduct under clause 17(i)(a), 17(i)(o) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet, petitioner submitted his reply and a departmental enquiry were constituted. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report dated 26.12.2006 holding the charges as not proved.

Thereafter, the disciplinary authority being not in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer made a decent note and issued a second show cause notice to this petitioner with proposed punishment. The second show cause notice clearly stipulated the grounds of disagreement with the finding of an enquiry officer. Thereafter, the petitioner had given a detailed reply; however, an order of punishment of removal from service has been passed observing that the petitioner is guilty of entering into the employment of the company fraudulently by falsely declaring him to be the dependent/son-in-law of Sri Sado.

Pursuant thereto; the petitioner preferred an appeal and also a writ application challenging the order of removal from service being W.P.(S) No. 2022 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7th May 2009 directing the respondent-authorities to dispose of the appeal. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of this petitioner which was communicated to him vide impugned letter dated 01.10.2009.

5. Mrs. M.M.Pal, learned senior counsel challenged the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order by contending that