An employer must conduct a proper departmental enquiry before terminating an employee for misconduct; failure to do so renders the termination unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For quashing/setting aside the award dated 30.08.12 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) at Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 239 of 2001 whereby and where under it has been held that removal of the petitioner Smt. Rohini Deshwalin/Bhatni Deshwalin by M/s B.C.C.L is legal and proper as the case is of fraudulent employment impersonating the real workman Rohini Deshwalin wife of Kali Deswali.

AND

(ii) further may be pleased in directing the respondents to make payment of all wages and consequential benefits treating the petitioner in continuous employment since the date of her removal being 18.03.2000 till the date of her superannuation attained on 10.01.2009 and set aside the order of removal vide letter no. WJA/BHD/P.O. 2000/587 dated 18.03.2000 (Annexure-1)

AND

(iii) to pass such other order(s), direction(s) as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The terms of reference to the Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) were as under: -

“Whether the removal of Smt. Rohni Deswalin/Bhatni Deswalin from the service by the management of BCCL Western Jharia Area is legal and proper? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

3. The domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 28.02.2012 and consequently the matter was placed for arguments on merits on the basis of the materials already on record.

4. The paragraph 6 of the impugned award refers to the evidences adduced on the point of fairness of domestic enquiry and the order dated 28.02.2012 whereby the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, paragraph 7 refers to the submissions of the union representing the workman, paragraph 8 refers to the submissions of the management and findings are recorded in paragraph 9 of the impugned award. The said paragraphs are quoted as under:

“6. In this case, on consideration of the statements of MW1 Sekhar Sood, Sr. Manager (Personnel) MW 2 Molay Kumar Chandra, Sr. Manager (Industrial Engineer), MW 3 Hulash Baitha, the clerk (Spl. Grade) MW4 Akhilesh Kumar Chand, the Clerk, and MW 5 Rathi Devi Security Guard for the management and WW 1 Rohani Deswalin (w/o Sri Numu Shah), the lady workman herself and WW2 Nunu Shah, for the Union on the preliminary point about the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Tribunal held the enquiry as quite fair, proper and in accordance with the Law as per order dt. 28.02.2012. Hence, it came up for final argument on merit.

7. Mr. Surendra Prasad, the Learned Union Representative for workwoman Rohini Deshwalin/ Bhatni Deswalin submits that she continuously served for about 29½ years since her appointment firstly as Shale Picker on 17.10.1971, and thereafter but she illegally removed from the service as per letter dt.18.3.2000 on the allegation of impersonation of Rohini Deshwalin w/o Kali Deshwalin without proper enquiry by the management, so she is entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits. He relied upon the four but filed three case laws as under:

“Since the petitioner continued on the post for more than nine years, equity demands that his services could not have been terminated on the ground that his appointment was not made after observing the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (2002 (2) PLJR 627(SB), Abhay Kr. Pandey Vs. State of Bihar-para 5); that 'termination of petitioners' service having been declared illegal and arbitrary, he can not be denied benefits of wages for the period during which he was not allowed to join duty principle of 'no work no pay' would not apply to such cases (2010(3)JLJR 335 (SB), Anil Kr. Singh V. Union of India Para 7 & 8); and Lastly it has been submitted by the Union Representative that 'Inordinate delay in issuance of charge Memo vitiates disciplinary proceeding, delinquent should not be made to suffer for mistake committed by Department (2005 4 AB.I.C. 4332 (SC) (DB) P.V. Ma