HEMAN MANDAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 12th November, 2007 issued by the respondent no.3, Secretary, Board of Mining Examination & Director of Mines Safety(Exam), by which the certificate of Mining Sirdar dated 27th May,1999 issued in his name has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner's experience certificate was found false and forged. The petitioner contends that in order to appear in an examination for obtaining the certificate of Mining Sirdar conducted by the respondents, the petitioner was required to produce a certificate of experience issued by a competent authority for participating in the said examination. The petitioner produced a certificate to that effect from the Colliery Manager, Kujju Colliery and thereafter the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination conducted on 19.02.1999. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he was shocked to receive an order dated 12.11.2007 as contained Annexure -B, by which his certificate of mining Sirdar has been cancelled, which has been found false and forged. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was ill during the said period for which he has enclosed medical certificate as contained in Annexure -4 series and, therefore, could not respond to the show cause notice on his own but his Mother had replied to the said show cause notice. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that from perusal of the show cause notice annexed to the counter affidavit, as contained in Annexure -B/II dated 21.11.2006 and 09.01.2007 it would appear that the show cause notice is vague and does not disclose any ground on which petitioner's experience certificate was found to be false and forged. It is the further contention of the petitioner that after filing of the counter affidavit it has come to his knowledge that since it was found that the signatory of the mining experience certificate was found to be one S.N. Gupta, who was never posted as colliery Manager, Kujju, the respondents have, upon inquiry from the Project Officer, Kujju Colliery, issued show cause notice and subsequently cancelled the Mining experience certificate. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact one R.B. Sengupta was the Colliery Manager, Kujju at the relevant point of time, who had issued the experience certificate to the petitioner and if the aforesaid grounds were disclosed in the show cause notice, the petitioner would have got enough opportunity to controvert the same. The respondent have appeared and filed their counter affidavit . It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that Board of Mining Examination (Coal and Metal) conducts a large number of statutory Examinations by the Office of the Director General Mines Safety for various competency certificate for a very large number of candidates at different centers spread all over the country. It is stated on behalf of the respondent that at the time of Examination it is not possible to verify all such certificates such as experience, Matriculation and other qualifications, lamp handling, character and Medical certificates produced by the candidates in support of their eligibility. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the examinations on the basis of the documents/ certificates submitted by him. Later on a complaint was received from one Binod Kumar by letter dated 17.07.2006 before the Chief Vigilance Officer, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur and thereupon inquiries were made from the office of the Project Office, Kujju, Colliery. Upon inquiry the office of the Project Officer, communicated through letter that no Colliery Manager was posted at Kujju Colliery by the name of Sri S.N. Gupta, who was the signatory of Mining Experience Certificate in respect of the petitioner Heman Mandal. Thereafter, the petitioners was issued show cause notice as indicated hereinabove, as contained in Annexure -B/II, calling upon him to show cause as to why legal action should not be taken for having submitting false experience certificate. He, however, did not reply to the show cause and his mother sent a letter. In that view of the matter, the respondents have cancelled the certificate on the basis of a decision taken by the Board of Mining Examination (Coal) in its meeting held on 7th July, 2007. The respondents have further stated in their counter affidavit that for the period for which the petitioner had claimed experience i.e. 1st June, 1992 to 30th May, 1996 from Kujju colliery, neither the person, who had issued the said certificate was posted in Kujju Colliery during the period of Experience Certificate and no record regarding experience/employment of the petitioner was available, which was reported by the two inquiry officers. In that view of the matter, the impugned order was issued cancelling the Mining Sirdar certificate as earlier issued to the petitioner with a penalty of debarment for 5 years effective from 7th July, 2007.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. The petitioner's case is that his experience certificate was issued on the basis of his work in the said Kujju Colliery by the Colliery Manager in the year 1996. The petitioner, in his writ petition, has, however, not given any statement in relation to his experience of 3 or 4 years as claimed by him nor any evidence in support of such claim. The respondents on receipt of complaint proceeded to conduct inquiry from the office of the Project Officer, Kujju Colliery, CCL from where the experience certificate was issued in the name of the petitioner. The Project Officer, Kujju Colliery, upon inquiry from his office, reported that no person in the name of S.N. Gupta was the Manager in the said Kujju Colliery during the relevant period of time and further no record regarding experience/employment of the petitioner was available in the said period in the Office of the Kujju Colliery. The petitioner, thereafter, was issued show cause as contained in Annexure -B/II and again reminder on 09.01.2007, which he failed to respond. On the other hand the petitioner's mother responded to the said show cause, however, in a vague manner. The respondents, in these circumstances, proceeded to issue the impugned order cancelling the Mining Sirdar certificate issued in the name of the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, it appears that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any evidence of his experience in the said colliery even in this writ petition for the said period, for which the experience certificate was issued and which has been cancelled upon the inquiries made by the Board of Mining Examination under the respondents from the office of Project Officer, Kujju Colliery. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order as no illegality or error seems to have been made out in issuing the same.

(3.) I .A. No. 245 of 2013 also stands dismissed.