Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Kameshwar Paswan Son of Late Chandradeo Dusadh – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), through its Chairman cum Managing Director – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 5165 of 2021
Decided on : 15-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Petitioner employed as storekeeper charged with suppressing fact of having passed matriculation prior to joining service and age discrepancy in service register versus certificate. Departmental enquiry conducted in three days without examining any oral witnesses, relying only on tendered documents. Dismissal order passed same day as reply to second show cause notice despite short response time; appeal dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Impugned dismissal order dated 28.06.2021 and appellate order dated 01/10.11.2021 set aside; writ petition allowed.
Issues: Whether charges proved in enquiry without oral evidence and proper proof of documents; whether petitioner ineligible due to age at appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: Departmental proceedings require evidence brought on record in manner known to law; unproved documents cannot sustain guilt finding as enquiry officer must consider only legally admissible materials after opportunity to cross-examine.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
For the Appellant :Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges dismissal via writ for procedural flaws. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no witnesses examined; documents unproved; no disclosure duty. (Para 3) |
| 3. suppression of matriculation hid underage ineligibility. (Para 4) |
| 4. documents require witness proof in quasi-judicial departmental enquiry; age minimum 16. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 5. writ allowed; impugned orders quashed. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire departmental proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 16.6.2021 contained in Letter no. 175 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the General Manager, Piparwar Area, CCL (Respondent No. 4) on the ground that the charge-sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority.
(ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the dismissal order dated 28.06.2021 as contained in Memo no. 218 (Annexure-14) issued under the signature of respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the order of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner with immediate effect.
(iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the appellate order dated 01/10.11.2021 (Annexure-16) issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on erroneous grounds.
(iv) For issuance of a further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.01.2021 contained in Memo as no. 371 (Annexure-16), whereby and whereunder it has been directed that the petitioner will retire from service of Regional Stores, Piparwar Area of CCL with effect from 30.06.2021 on superannuation.
(v) Consequently after quashing of the aforesaid impugned orders, a direction may be given upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits thereupon be paid with immediate effect.
2. The petitioner was working as Chief Storekeeper at the Regional Store, Piparwar Area, under M/s Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.). He was issued a charge-sheet dated 16.06.2021 alleging suppression of the fact that he had passed the Matriculation examination prior to joining service on 08.07.1980. The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted his reply on 18.06.2021. Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the management appointed an Enquiry Officer and conducted a departmental enquiry between 21.06.2021 and 23.06.2021. During the enquiry, the petitioner sought permission to engage a co-worker to defend his case. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 23.06.2021 finding him guilty. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 24.06.2021 was issued granting only 24 hours to respond. Despite the petitioner submitting his reply on 28.06.2021, the disciplinary authority on the same date passed an order dismissing him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner’s appeal dated 18.08.2021 was also dismissed and subsequently, vide order dated 16.01.2021, the petitioner was directed to retire from service w.e.f. 30.06.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no oral or formal witness was examined by the management. The entire disciplinary action was conducted without proper evidence, without granting reasonable opportunity to defend, and without following mandatory procedural requirements. He further submits that the management relied on ME-1 Service Register in support of allegation. However, the said document does not contain any column requiring disclosure of educational qualification. Therefore, there was no obligation on the petitioner to disclose his ma
