SARJUG ALIAS SARJOO PASWAN Vs. COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ has been made by the petitioner to the chargesheet dated 14.03.1997 (Annexure-A) issued against the petitioner, the proceedings thereof and the order of dismissal issued against the petitioner dated 17.06.1997 (Annexure-C to the writ petition). The ground of challenge of the writ petition is that no chargesheet was served on him, the alleged inquiry was conducted ex parte without giving him any opportunity of hearing and the order of dismissal was also passed ex parte without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. Again the chargesheet is biased, the entire proceeding is mala fide, order of dismissal is illegal and everything has been done behind the petitioner with a view to victimise him. The petitioner was ill and was absent from his services for only 37 days and on this charge capital punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner, however, subsequently, procured the copies of chargesheet, inquiry report and the order of dismissal.

(2.) The petitioner on 14.08.1997 made an appeal before the appellate authority claiming justice against such illegal order of dismissal and for withdrawal of the order of dismissal and also praying for reinstatement in his service.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed which was affirmed on 23rd April, 2003 by one Bakul Das, the Personnel Manager of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. In the opposition in paragraph 4 at the outset, on behalf of the respondents a point was taken regarding maintainability of the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the opposition it has been stated that the petitioner is a workman and is governed by Industrial Disputes Act and the writ petition is not maintainable since the alternative forum or remedy lies in the industrial proceeding. In this affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 10 it has been stated that the petitioner has submitted an application on 23.04.1997 which was addressed to the Personnel Officer/Medical Officer of Parascole Colliery and he was under treatment at Adjoy II Colliery Dispensary w.e.f. 06.02.1997 to 09.03.1997 and the petitioner was issued fitness certificate by the doctor on 20.02.1997. The respondents in this paragraph denied the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that as per office record it is incorrect that the petitioner even fallen sick and his treatment was continued from 24.02.1997 till 10.03.1997. The respondents stated that it is also incorrect that the petitioner was given permission to join duty w.e.f. 10.03.1997.