CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED Vs. LILAWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court on behalf of the defendants against the judgment and decree dated October 7, 1991 in first appeal No. 118 of 1981 (R), whereby and whereunder, the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, GIRIDIH, in Title Suit No. 20/1 of 1976/79 was set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated that facts of the case is that late Krishna Bihari Jaiswal (plaintift) was employed as Mechanic Grade-I under the N. C. D. C. Ltd. and allotted a quarter bearing No. 112. A case was lodged against his brother, Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal in the year, 1962 and he was dismissed from service. The said case was lodged on the allegation that the aforesaid Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal had committed a criminal trespass in the aforesaid Quarter No. 112, which was in possession of the plaintiff on allotment. According to the plaintiff, the suit against Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal was absolutely on a false ground, since Quarter No. 112 was already allotted to the plaintiff. The further case is that during pendency of the suit for eviction with respect to House No. 112 against Sadhu Sharan Jaiswal, another house No. 18/1 was arbitrarily allotted to the plaintiff by the management although House No. 112 was already allotted to him. The plaintiff, therefore, refused to occupy quarter No. 18/1, since it was ; found in a dilapidated condition.

(3.) In the meantime, a proceeding was started against the plaintiff for allegedly occupying two quarters i.e. 112 and the other 18/1 and accordingly, he was also placed under suspension. Although the plaintiff filed show cause, but the same was not accepted and ultimately two chargesheets were issued against him. The allegation relating to first charge was that on June 30, 1965 the plaintiff along with his brother stopped a jeep of the Colliery Manager for an hour and misbehaved with him. He also threatened the Manager and demanded supply of coal. According to the Manager, the aforesaid conduct of the plaintiff constituted a misconduct on his part under sub-clauses (c), (i) and (r) of Clause 18 of the Standing Orders.