JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that in both the appeals since involving the similar issue, therefore, the same may be heard together and disposed of with this common order. In view thereof, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided with this common order.

L.P.A.No.371 of 2020

2. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court directed against the order/judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6725 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with the charge-sheet. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated which reads hereunder as:-

The writ petitioner who claims to have been adopted by registered deed as son by late Rameshwar Singh. The said Rameshwar Singh was appointed on the post of Security Guard on 10.11.1973. Late Rameshwar Singh has opted for voluntary retirement in the month of October, 1988 making request for proper employment in favour of the writ petitioner as his adopted son. The writ petitioner passed matriculation examination in the year 1985 and based upon the said document appointed as Typing Trainee Category-I on 03.05.1989. Subsequently, he has been promoted to other post.

The disciplinary authority has issued charge-sheet on 02.02.2017 on the allegation that the deed of adoption signed on 25.01.1985 and on that date, the writ petitioner has already crossed the age of 15 years and in view of the provision as contained under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, his appointment cannot be said to be proper in terms of the aforesaid provision of the Act and on the ground of fraud, the name of biological father is differing.

Show cause has been issued against him. Being aggrieved with this, the writ petitioner has challenged the said show cause by filing the instant writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6725 of 2017.

It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the charge-sheet has been issued against the writ petitioner is bad in Law in view of the fact that there is no misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner as also on the ground that the show cause has been issued after lapse of about more than 28 years. Further, the adoption deed has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in support of the argument to the effect that the writ petitioner is nephew of late Rameshwar Singh and at the time of adoption, he was below 15 years of age.

It has further been indicated that the adoption was made earlier, however, the deed was executed later on and therefore, submission has been made before the learned Single Judge that no fraudulent act on behalf of the writ petitioner was committed rather in view of the Scheme of respondent-Central Coalfields Limited.

The writ petitioner was offered appointed on 03.05.1989 and after expiry of the period of 28 years of service, the charge-sheet in such nature is not maintainable, which led the writ petitioner to file the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.6725 of 2017.

L.P.A.No.373 of 2020

4. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court directed against the order/judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3229 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with the charge-sheet.

5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated which reads hereunder as:-

The writ petitioner, namely, Dhaneshwar Yadav who claims to have been adopted son of Bhola Mahto. Bhola Mahto was a permanent employee working as Plant Helper (Excavator Plant Helper) in Kathara Colliery of the respondent-CCL. He was declared medically unfit at the age of 56 yea