AMIT KUMAR Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 19.01.2004, by which, the services of the father of the petitioner has been dismissed and further for quashing letter dated 29/30.04.2010, whereby the compassionate appointment has been refused to the petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner has been dismissed from services of the company and further for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that the father of the petitioner was employed with the management of BCCL as Electrician in the year 1981. It has further been stated that unfortunately, the father of the petitioner went missing from 20.03.2000 and thereafter, he never returned home, to which, it is reported to the police station on 29.04.2000, however, no trace of the father of the petitioner could be found. It has further been averred that seven year had passed since the father of the petitioner had last been heard of, the mother of the petitioner filed a Title Suit bearing T.S. No. 38 of 2007 in the Court of learned Munsif, Dhanbad, impleading respondents -BCCL as party -respondents, for a declaration that her husband, namely, Diwakar, son of late Batohi Bhiya was dead. It has been submitted that said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 30.01.2009. It has been averred in the writ application, for the first time, in the Title Suit, the petitioner and his family members came to know that services of the deceased -employee had been terminated vide order dated 19/21.01.2004.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal is bad in law as the fact regarding the missing of the father of th petitioner was well within the knowledge of the respondents -authorities, hence, no proceeding could have been initiated against the father of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that no notice of any sort was ever served upon any of the family members of the missing employee, either prior to initiation of departmental proceeding or before passing the final order of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the the petitioner and his mother repeatedly submitted representations i.e. representation dated 03.12.2002, 17.12.2002, and 10.10.2003 etc. to provide employment to the petitioner in place of his father, hence, the respondents - authorities have knowledge about the missing of the father of the petitioner before passing the impugned order of dismissal. It has further been submitted that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner and his mother and impugned order of dismissal has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice.