ARBIND KUMAR TEWARY Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIALTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has claimed for quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings including the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 12.9.1995 and thereafter and also for a direction not to proceed against the petitioner in the same matter any further.

(2.) The facts are almost admitted in this case. In the month of April, 1989, the petitioner was appointed on a causal basis in the post of Khalasi under the respondent No. 2. In the month of July, 1989, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Junior Chemical Assistant but on 3.1.1990, the service of the petitioner was discontinued with immediate effect. The petitioner raised industrial dispute before the appropriate Government through Labour Department by notification dated 10.1.1991. The matter was referred to the Labor Court, Bokaro Steel City. After hearing both the parties and after the evidence was adduced by both the parties, the Labour Court vide order dated 21.7.1992 in terms of reference decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner for which the Management discontinued his employment was that he had taken the service on compassionate ground although his elder brother was already in the appointment under the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short 'SAIL'), the retrenchment order was found to be illegal and the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner within three months. Accordingly by office order dated 29.10.1992, the petitioner was reinstated to the post of Junior Chemical Assistant (L-3) grade on causal basis with effect from 3.1.1990. Then again the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 26.4.1993 on the same ground that the had procured service on concealment of fact that his elder brother is being in service in the same Management. The petitioner submitted his representation praying for dropping the matter. After due enquiry, by office order dated 6.10.1993, the matter was dropped by imposing warning against the petitioner. After that by office order dated 26.10.1993, the petitioner was, permanently absorbed in the post of Junior Chemical Assistant. Again on 12.9.1995, the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice purportedly on the basis of the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R) on the ground of his illegal appointment vis-a-vis that he has procured the appointment on suppression of material fact of his elder brother being in service of the same Management. The petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid writ petition nor his case was within the category which was the matter in issue in the said writ petition. However, on fear of general directions being issued/given in that writ petition, one Shri Shailendra Kumar and Ors. including the petitioner challenged the order of CW.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R) dated 7.2.1995 in L.P.A. No. 306 of 1995 (R). The petitioner also submitted his representation in connection with the show cause notice. Even after that, again on 6.2.1996, the petitioner was served with a further show cause notice on the same set of allegation. Although during the pendency of that show cause notice, the service of the petitioner has been confirmed upon the completion of probation period and he was granted the benefits of increments too. It is the case of the petitioner that he was also directed by the authorities to appear in interview for further promotion in the line of his grade.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that on the same matter of allegation the petitioner was once retrenched from service and then again on the decision of Labour Court, the allegation could not be substantiated and the petitioner was reinstated and while he was the causal employees, he was absorbed in the service on regular basis and he was proceeded with on the same allegation departmentally again and the same was concluded by imposing 'warning' on the petitioner. Then the petitioner was permanently absorbed as was allowed by the authorities, he cannot be proceeded with on the same set of allegation again and again.