LAWS(CAL)-2003-3-17

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Vs. TAPAN KUMAR GIRI

Decided On March 12, 2003
BHARAT COKING COAL LTD Appellant
V/S
TAPAN KUMAR GIRI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the judgment and order dated 22nd July 1994 passed by Prabir Kumar Majumder, J (as he then was) in Matter No. 2024 of 1993 (a writ petition) has been impugned. The writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 challenging (a) the disciplinary proceeding initiated by charge-sheet dated 2nd November 1992, and (b) the punishment order of dismissal from service dated 3rd May, 1993. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Judge was pleased (a) to set aside the punishment order on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, and (b) to grant liberty to appellants to impose any punishment other than the punishment of dismissal or removal from service. By an order dated 16th September 1994, passed in this appeal the operation of the impugned judgment and order was stayed.

(2.) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the appellant No. 1, initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 1 by issuing the charge-sheet dated 2nd November 1992. The charges were (1) failure to maintain absolute integrity, and (2) furnishing false information regarding age. The charges were based on three certificates submitted by the respondent No. 1; those were: - (1) School Final Certificate dated 9th July 1957 issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, (2) Overmanship Certificate dated 3rd October 1964 issued by the Directorate General of Mines Safety, and (3) Gas Testing Certificate dated 19th March 1976. It was alleged that in all the three certificates the respondent No. 1 tampered with the relevant entry regarding his date of birth for illegally enjoying the benefit of four years' excess service. Stating that his such act amounted to misconduct under rules 4.1 (i) and 5.4 of the Coal India Ltd. (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978, the respondent No. 1 was directed to show cause why he should not be punished.

(3.) In his reply dated 9th November 1992 the respondent No. 1 admitted that in all the three certificates originally his date of birth had been recorded as 19th February 1938. He explained that his application dated 11th December 1970, offering his candidature for the post of Brigade Member under the Central Coal Mines Rescue Station Committee, Dhanbad, was accompanied by a birth certificate issued by the Contai Municipality ( in the State of West Bengal) recording his date of birth as 19th February 1942 and the selection committee, after accepting this date, directed the office (of the CCMRS Committee) to correct his date of birth originally recorded in the said three certificates by the respective issuing authorities. He put up a case that consequently the respective original entries, recording his date of birth as 19th February 1938 in the said three certificates, had been penned through by the office of the Central Coal Mines Rescue Station Committee at Dhanbad, which at once recorded 19th February 1942 as his date of birth in the respective entries of the said three certificates.