R.N. SINGH Vs. EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated June 16, 1995 whereby the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Petitioner was a clerk in the Eastern Coalfields Limited at Dhemomain Colliery. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him by serving a charge sheet that he had prepared and presented wage sheets of the underground loaders for the month of February, 1983 for signature of the Assistant Personal Manager who when wanted to make a test check before signing the sheets, that was not liked by the delinquent and he misbehaved with him and snatched away the said wage sheets and later on produced the wage sheet for signature of the Manager, the Manager also did not sign the sheets and on checking found that the employee had prepared false bills to the extent of Rs. 2,409.59 with a view to defraud the company. The original sheets were also at variance with the duplicate copies thereof as shown in the annexure to the charge sheet. On further inquiry and checking it was found that the wage sheets prepared by him for the months of October, November and December, 1982 and January, 1983 contained falsification of accounts aggregating to Rs. 13,501.00. Explanation of Petitioner was sought for, his reply was not satisfactory, therefore, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. It is alleged that inspite of repeated notices the Petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceedings on various pleas and ultimately the inquiry was held ex parte. The inquiry officer submitted his finding and found the Petitioner guilty of the charges and the same was concurred by the management and thereupon the order of dismissal from service was passed against the Petitioner and it was communicated to him on March 31, 1984. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against this order. Without waiting for the result of the appeal, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court (Matter No. 2176 of 1986) challenging the order of dismissal. this Court on June 8, 1989 set aside the order of dismissal and directed the management to proceed with the inquiry afresh giving the Petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was also directed that the Petitioner be treated as on duty for the entire period since the order of dismissal but he shall only be paid 25% of the arrear salary for the time being. It was also ordered that in the event the writ Petitioner succeeds in the inquiry he shall be entitled to the entire salary for the period during which the order of dismissal was operative. Laverty was given to proceed afresh on the basis of the self same charge sheet. Aggrieved against this order an appeal was preferred (Appeal No. 349 of 1989) by the management. this Court on June 9, 1989 stayed operation of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and further directed that the management could proceed with the inquiry as directed by the Learned Single Judge but directed that the final order may be passed consequent upon the completion of the fresh inquiry but effect shall not be given to that order without the leave of the appellate court. The second inquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was found guilty of the charges and the disciplinary authority on December 20, 1990 agreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the Petitioner but in view of the order passed by the Division Bench the order could not be given effect to and a permission was sought from the Division Bench to give effect to the order. On August 1, 1991 the Division Bench passed an order directing the management to pay the writ Petitioner dues @ 25% of the salary as ordered by this Court for the period till June 7, 1989 and to pay the full salary of the Petitioner for the period from June 8, 1989 till July 31, 1991. Leave was also granted for communication of the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and accordingly on December 20, 1990 the order of dismissal was communicated to the Petitioner. The appeal as well as the stay petition were disposed of by the Division Bench.

(3.) Aggrieved against the second order of dismissal dated December 20, 1990 the Petitioner filed a second writ petition being the present one. This writ petition was also heard by the Learned Single Judge and the Learned Single Judge after hearing the matter came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the management does not warrant any interference and he dismissed the writ petition.