DEORAJ BARTIYA Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.3.1994 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Additional Chief Mining Officer/Project Officer) by which the services of the petitioner has again been terminated on the same grounds of impersonation notwithstanding the award of the Industrial Tribunal setting aside the earlier order of termination and reinstating the petitioner with full back wages after giving findings contrary to the charges levelled.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, after having been appointed on 1.5.1974, all of a sudden in the year 1978, the respondents started issuing information to different persons including the petitioner and gave a general notice to the effect that it had come to the knowledge of the management that there had been large scale impersonation and therefore, a committee had been constituted in order to ascertain the bona files of individual workmen including the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has stated that there were -other reference including Reference No. 60/64 of 1981 and 132 of 1986 and in each of the references, the concerned workmen therein were ordered to be reinstated with back wages. Petitioner has stated that inspitie thereof and only because the petitioner happened to be a member of a Union which had filed a compliant against the Respondents, that he was singled out and, in order to harass him, a charge -sheet dated 30.9.1988 was issued asking him to show cause why disciplinary action should be taken against him for having committed acts which amount to giving false information in relation to his name. The aforementioned charge -sheet is Annexure -3 to the writ application and the petitioner has stated that the said charge -sheet was for the same charges of impersonation which had already been decided on 30.8.1985 in Reference Case No. 94 of 1982 vide Annexure -2 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner and others filed CWJC No. 2204 of 1988 (R) challenging the charge -sheet and the departmental proceeding. By order dated 23.1.1989 a Division Bench adopted the reasoning given in an identical case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 2107 of 1988 (R) delivered on 10.10.1988 and disposed off the writ application. The aforementioned two orders dated 23.1.1989 passed in CWJC No. 2204 of 1988 (R) and CWJC No. 2107 of 1988 (R) are Annexures -4 and 4/1 to the writ application.