JUDGMENT :

With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2. The instant intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2448 of 2018 and analogous cases whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the memorandum of charge by dismissing the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to demonstrate the points before the departmental proceeding.

3. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

One Mukhlal Hari was a permanent employee working on the post of Sweeper in Bokaro Colliery under Respondent No.1 since 1957. The said Mukhlal Hari was issueless and accordingly, in or around the year 1970, he adopted the writ petitioner when he was aged about 5 years, after performing prevalent ceremony in their custom in the society.

The date of birth of the writ petitioner is 21.10.1965 and, therefore, he has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his adoptive father in harness on 15.11.1985 in view of the provision of 9.4.2 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-III and after proper verification of his application followed by interview held on 02.08.1986, appointment letter was issued in his favour on 04.11.1986 to the post of Category-I Sweeper and accordingly, he was posted in Sanitation Section at No.3 Area and he started discharging his duty. He was promoted to the post of Category-II sometime in the year 2012. But all of a sudden, a memorandum of charge was issued on 31.07.2017 on the allegation that the petitioner applied as adopted son of Mukhlal Hari, Ex-Sweeper, on compassionate ground and accordingly, he was appointed on 05.11.1986 but on scrutiny of the records it was revealed that there was no adoption deed to substantiate his claim and his biological father namely Mahabir Hari, is continuing in illegal occupation of Quarter No.214 which is adjacent to Quarter No.213 of the writ petitioner basis upon which the allegation has been leveled against the writ petitioner about commission of misconduct as per the provision of Clause 26.9, 26.22 and 26.41 of the Certified Standing Order of the Central Coalfields Limited.

It was the case of the writ petitioner that said memorandum of charge was issued after a lapse of 31 years and prior to that no such allegation has ever been levelled against the writ petitioner and further, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act there is no provision that the adoption must be by a registered document and, therefore, according to the writ petitioner, the memorandum of charge is without any basis and foundation hence the same is fit to be quashed and, therefore, writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the same by dismissing the writ petition, however, leaving it open to the writ petitioner to raise the valid points in the departmental proceeding which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.

4. Mr. A.K.Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact about applicability of the registered deed for adoption which was not required at all at the time of appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground after the death of Mukhlal Hari, in harness.

He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the fact that the memorandum of charge has been issued after delay of 31 years i.e., at the fag end of service, therefore, interference should have been made by quashing the memorandum of charge but having not done so, gross error has been committed by the learned Single J