PRAHLAD SINGH, SON OF RAM PRAVESH SINGH AND RESIDENT OF BANK MORE, P.O & P.S. Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing original order dated 04.02.2004 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services and for quashing appellate order dated 27.04.2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been affirmed.

(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed in the services of CCL on 16.06.1988 under the Land Loser Scheme. After more than a decade, petitioner along with brothers-in-law of the petitioner, who were also appointed in M/s CCL after appointment of the petitioners, received a letter dated 26.09.1999 stating therein that complaints have been received about the land under which they were appointed and were directed to produce original documents. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted genealogy table on 31.3.2001, in which, said Kishori Singh and Anil Kumar Singh were shown as his brothers-in-law of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.07.2001 as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of the petitioner was not at all under question as his father's land was acquired and he being the son was given employment in lieu of acquisition. However, the appointment of his brothers-in-law, Kishori Singh and Anil Kumar Singh was under question. It has further been submitted that the petitioner got employment in CCL being the lineal dependent of Ram Pravesh Singh, which has not been disputed or objected to by the management. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the memo of charge, it is evident that there was no specific charge against the petitioner; hence, the punishment of dismissal from services is shockingly disproportionate. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Surendra Prasad Shukla Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in (2011) 8 SCC 536 . It has further been submitted that in the enquiry, the enquiry officer did not consider the clear evidence and statements made by the father of the petitioner clarifying that the other appointees, whose appointment is in question are actually brothers-in-law of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the enquiry is biased and in this regard referred to a decision rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur as reported in (1972) 4 SCC 618 . It has further been submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that employment was given because of any false/misleading statement made by the petitioner rather employment was given in the year 1988 and the information was supplied by the petitioner in the year 2001.