ARUN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interference declined in the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dismissing the claim is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant herein sponsored through the Employment Exchange concerned was appointed as Piece Rated Loader as per Annexure-P-1 appointment order. Subsequently, on the basis of some documents as to the qualification of the appellant/petitioner, his claim for further advancement in the career was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'the DPC'), who promoted him on the post of Clerk Grade-III as per Annexure-P-2. Similar exercise was pursued in respect of further advancement of career and as per Annexure-P-3 he was promoted and posted as Clerk Grade-II. Similarly his claim for further promotion and posting to the post of Clerk Grade-I was considered and the same was granted to him by the subsequent DPC vide Annexure-P-4. While continuing his appointment, the respondents came across some incriminating circumstances against the appellant/petitioner when he putforth his LTC claim showing his name as 'Arun Kumar Sharma' instead of name as contained in the service record as 'Arun Kumar'. He was also shown as a person belonging to a totally different district than the particulars furnished earlier and also different date of birth. This led to disciplinary proceeding against him, as the same amounted to misconduct, according to the employer. Vide Annexure-P-5, charge sheet was filed/issued to the appellant, who putforth his explanation as per Annexure-P/6. The domestic enquiry was concluded and report was submitted holding the delinquent employee guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the findings, punishment was imposed, whereby the appellant was reduced in rank from that of Clerk Grade-I to Clerk Grade-III as per Annexure-P/9 dated 25.04.1998.

(3.) It was also mentioned in Annexure-P-9 that the employee under no circumstances will be entitled to have his date of birth reckoned as sought to be shown in the matriculation records, which was never part of the proceeding filed by him nor contended by him while entering into the service or getting promotion.