RAM SINGH Vs. WESTERNCOAL FIELDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2001 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is contended that the petitioner was employed in the Western Coal Fields Ltd. (herein after referred to as 'W.C.L.' for short) under the control of respondent No.2. A chargesheet was issued to him on 2/3.11.2000 making allegations that the petitioner got himself employed by impersonating as if he was Ram Singh, son of Sukkal, whereas the real name of the petitioner is Sonu, son of Hannu. It is contended that the petitioner made an application in response to the said charge-sheet stating that he is illiterate tribal person and knows only to discharge his duties. He has not committed any fraud. The petitioner made an application for grant of defence assistance and for the said purpose one of the employees of the W.C.L. was appointed but the said person was not relieved, therefore, the petitioner was not granted full opportunity of defence. In the statement recorded, effective cross-examination could not be done and thereafter some sort of enquiry report was submitted. Opposing the enquiry report, submissions were made by the petitioner but he was not granted an opportunity of hearing in appropriate manner and ultimately the order was issued dismissing the petitioner from service, therefore, he is required to file this writ petition. It is contended that since the order impugned is per se illegal, the same is liable to be quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

(3.) In response to the notice of this writ petition, return has been filed by the respondents and it is categorically contended that the complaint was made by one Shankar, son of Ram Singh, that the petitioner, by impersonating himself as Ram Singh, has obtained the employment with the respondents whereas the real name of the petitioner was Sonu, son of Hannu, and he was residing at Salidhana, Panchayat Ratamati, District Betul. The statements of the petitioner were recorded in which he has categorically admitted that his real name was Sonu, son of Hannu. He was resident of Desawadi. He got the employment in the year 1975. His brother-in-law is Ram Singh, son of Sukkal, who is resident of Salidhana. His brother-in-law gave him his card of interview for getting the employment in the establishment of the respondents. In this manner, the petitioner has obtained the employment. He admitted that Ram Singh, son of Sukkal, was residing at Salidhana. After recording this statement and completing the formalities of holding the enquiry, a report was given that the petitioner by impersonation has obtained the employment with the respondents and, therefore, he was liable to be dismissed from service. After receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was granted full opportunity of defence by giving him a copy of the enquiry report. Though a reply was submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice but nothing was placed on record to show that such a statement recorded by the Enquiry Officer was incorrect. After completing the proceedings of enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 02.04.2001 by the impugned order. Thus, it is contended that nothing wrong is committed by the respondents and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. No rejoinder whatsoever has been filed by the petitioner to meet out these allegations.