JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of a writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Office Order dated 20.5.2019 as contained in memo no. 2265 (Annexure-6) passed by the Respondent No. 6, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been dismissed from the service w.e.f. 21.5.2019 and his Gratuity has also been forfeited in terms of Section 4 Clause of 6(b)(i) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972;

(ii) For that above named petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of appeal order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure-12) as contained in memo no.1467 issued under the signature of respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against his order of dismissal from the service w.e.f. 21.05.2019 has been rejected by the appellant authority.

(iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding/directing the respondents to make payment of after reinstating the petitioner into the service, make payment of arrears of salary with all consequential benefits to which he was otherwise entitled from the date of the dismissal i.e. from 20.5.2019 uptil the date of reinstatement in service along with interest.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while working as Pump Operator at Patratu, Sayal ‘D’ Colliery, was served with a charge sheet contained in memo No. 1765 dated 27.10.2007 whereby the petitioner was charged to have fraudulently managed to get compassionate employment in place of deceased Mathura Singh under 9.3.2 of NCWA in connivance with the wife of the deceased, as son of the ex-employee, which he actually was not. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet and denied all the allegations. Thereafter, after lapse of about nine years, the petitioner was directed to participate in the enquiry proceedings, which the petitioner participated and also submitted his defence statement against the allegations along with relevant documentary evidences. Vide enquiry report dated 07.01.2019, the enquiry officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved and considering the same, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 21.05.2019 vide office order dated 20.05.2019 by the disciplinary authority who also forfeited the Gratuity amount. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred departmental appeal vide letter dated 06.01.2020 which got dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2021 as contained in memo No. 1467.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the respondent authorities have not taken into consideration the defense statement and relevant documentary evidences submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the order in departmental appeal was passed during the pendency of this writ application and the petitioner was not given the opportunity to be heard. He also submits that forfeiture of the gratuity amount is bad and illegal. When admittedly he has worked, he is entitled for the gratuity.

5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner was given ample and sufficient opportunity to defend his case. The learned counsel states that there are sufficient evidences collected in course of departmental proceedings to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct. The learned counsel further submits that even in the departmental appeal the appellate authority had considered all the evidences produced i.e. statement of witnesses, enquiry report, documentary evidences and pleadings of the petitioner and thereafter, affirmed the punishment order. He also submits that the order forfeiting the gratuity is justified as petitioner is an impersonator and obtained employment by fraud. Fraud vitiates all actions, thus, even on this ground he is not