RAJESH TURI Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD , RANCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing/ setting aside the order dated 28.04.2016, whereby petitioner has been terminated from service of the respondent-company on account of unauthorized absence. Further prayer has been made for quashing/ setting aside the appellate order dated 19.12.2016, issued by the respondent-company. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to resume his duty with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner was appointed as Category-I Employee in the respondent-company on 14.02.1996 and since then, he is serving the company to the best of his abilities. It is the case of the petitioner that on 08.09.2008, he was issued a charge-sheet by Manager, Dhori Colliery initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner for absenting from duties since 31.07.2007, without any information to his parent-department. Thereafter, another charge-sheet dated 29.04.2009 was again issued by the respondents for the same self-charges. The petitioner submitted his reply on 23.03.2013. Thereafter, an enquiry committee was constituted and enquiry officer was appointed on 09.08.2014, for conducting enquiry for the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though he was present before enquiry officer but he never received the enquiry report. Meanwhile, the petitioner was sent before the medical board for the purposes of medical fitness. The petitioner was waiting for his joining but no action was taken and the petitioner was always assured that he would be allowed to join within no time along with back wages. In the meantime, petitioner received order dated 28.04.2016, whereby he came to know that his services have been terminated by the respondent-Company. Left with no option, petitioner preferred appeal against the order of termination before the respondent No. 2, which was dismissed without application of mind. Challenging the order of termination and order passed in appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court.