SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND - PRINCIPAL BENCH JHARKHAND
DEVENDRA NATH RAI – Appellant
Versus
M/S COAL INDIA LIMITED And ORS – Respondent
WPC 1023/2010



Advocates:
['MAHAVIR PRASAD SINHA', '', 'MONAJ AKHTER', 'DEVESH KRISHNA', 'ANOOP KUMAR MEHTA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 1023 of 2010

---------

Devendra Nath Rai

..… Petitioner

Versus

1. M/s Coal India Limited through Its Chairman-cum-

Managing Director.

2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, C.I.L, having its

registered office at 10 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata.

3. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited, having its registered office

at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela

District-Dhanbad.

4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking

Coal Limited, having its registered office at Koyla Bhawan,

P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela District-Dhanbad.

..... Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Md. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate

---------

09/Dated: 27th January, 2021

Heard through V.C.

2.

The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated

17.03.2009 issued vide letter No. CIL/VIG 1458; whereby

punishment of removal from service has been passed

against this petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding held for

suppression of actual date of birth and also for a direction

upon the respondent-authorities to make payment of all the

arrears of monthly wages and retiral benefits for which the

petitioner was entitled as per superannuation notice.

The petitioner has further challenged the order

passed by the appellate authority vide its order dated

23.03.2015.

3.

The relevant fact as disclosed in the instant writ

2

application is that the petitioner passed his matriculation

examination

in

the

year,

1967

and

intermediate

examination in 1969 and completed his graduation from

Degree College Gajipur in the year, June 1971. He was

appointed as General Mazdoor where he has recorded his

date of birth as 03.07.1952 in Form-B register. On

02.11.1976, the respondent-Company invited application

from its eligible employees for appointment on the post of

Welfare Officer in the executive cadre and the name of the

petitioner along with his application was forwarded for due

consideration along with necessary certificates. In the

aforesaid application the date of birth of the petitioner was

mentioned as 03.07.1949 based on the Certificate issued by

the Education Council. The petitioner was selected and was

called for interview and as per the requirement of the

interview Board; the original matriculation certificate along

with other documents were submitted wherein his date of

birth has been recorded as 03.07.1949. Thereafter, the

petitioner was transferred to WCL in the year, 1980 and

again on 15.08.81 he was transferred from WCL to BCCL.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he

joined his service way back in the year, 1971, but at the fag

end of his service he has been terminated on the alleged

charge that the petitioner has recorded incorrect date of

birth in official records, which was subsequently found by

3

the management that his real date of birth; which was

actually 03.07.1949, was suppressed and the petitioner get

recorded his date of birth as 03.07.1952.

It has been further alleged that the same has been

done with an ulterior motive and for his personal gain in

fraudulent manner.

Pursuant to the charge-sheet, a regular proceeding

was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty for the

charge leveled against him and order of punishment of

removal from service has been imposed upon him.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was

also dismissed.

4.

Mr. Sadab Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the impugned order of removal from service

deserves to be quashed on the sole ground that it is a non-

speaking order. His next limb of argument is that the

punishment is not proportionate. In support of his second

limb of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top