RAMAKANTA PARIJA Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF MINING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Dumper Operator and terminated from service on 7/11/1990 and subsequently reinstated in service on 27/5/2009, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 1/3/2016 under Annexure-1, by which he has been denied the benefit of promotion and other reliefs.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Dumper Operator and joined in service on 13/2/1984. After completion of his probation period on 12/2/1985, his post was designated as EPGE (Shovel). At that point of time, he was issued with a charge sheet on the allegation that on 5/5/1986 some tyres were stolen from the store of the company, when the key of the store was with the petitioner-workman. The same was specifically denied by the petitioner and it was stated that he was never handed over with the keys of the store during the relevant period and he never remained in-charge of the store at any point of time. During the enquiry neither the list of documents nor the list of witnesses was supplied to the petitioner and, as such, there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice in a domestic inquiry. But, thereafter, he has been terminated from service.

(3.) Mrs. U.R. Padhi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposite party, instead of adhering to the directions given by the industrial tribunal to extend the notional benefits of promotion to the petitioner, which was affirmed by this Court, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 dtd. 1/3/2016, without any application of mind. Thereby, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is contended that the case of the petitioner with regard to promotion should have been considered in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and consequentially the petitioner should have been extended with the consequential benefits as due and admissible to him in accordance with law.