ANGURI KHATOON, W/O LATE ASGAR ALI, MUNSHI, SIRKA COLLIERY, P.S. SIRKA, P.O Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELD LIMITED (A SUBSIDIARY OF COAL INDIA LTD.) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DHARBHANGA HOUSE, RANCHI, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 11.02.2009 and appellate order dated 15.10.2009 and to reinstate the petitioner in services with back wages with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, as emanated from the writ application, in brief, is that the husband of the petitioner was appointed by the C.C.L Management under 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme' in place of his uncle Md. Yunus vide order dated 11/19.01.1980. While continuing as such, a charge-sheet dated 10.11998 was served upon him alleging that the husband of the petitioner fraudulently obtained employment, as he has no relation with his so-called uncle, Md. Yunus. Pursuant thereto, the husband of the petitioner replied to show cause notice denying the charges levelled against him, but a regular enquiry was started against him, in which though, the enquiry officer gave a finding that Asgar Ali is nephew of Md. Yunus, but disagreeing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued 2nd show cause notice and without considering the explanation of the husband of the petitioner imposed the impugned order of dismissal dated 11.02009 which was confirmed in appeal vide order dated 15.10.2009.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that after rendering unblemished services for about two decades, memo of charge was served upon the petitioner but on what basis or basing on which document or piece of information charges were framed were not disclosed and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, enquiry officer recorded the finding to the effect that ".. on the basis of the above Government documents as well as Muslim Society certificate, it is clear that Asgar Ali is nephew of Md. Yunus. The charges levelled against Asgar Ali dated 10.12.1998 is not proved." But the disciplinary authority issued 2nd show cause notice without supplementing the cogent reasons for disagreement of such finding recorded by the enquiry officer rather the contrary evidence was taken into consideration for disagreement of such finding. It has further been submitted that the disciplinary authority at no point of time disbelieved the family certificate furnished by the petitioner and only on extraneous ground came to the conclusion that the Asgar Ali is not nephew of Md. Yunus and thereby imposed the impugned order of dismissal dated 11.02.2009, which met the same fate in appeal. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further questioned the competency and jurisdiction of disciplinary authority to pass the impugned order. In this regard, it is submitted that the impugned order of dismissal was passed by the Project Officer, who is much below the rank of Personnel Officer, who had issued the appointment letter, thus, it is violation of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 28 (6) of the Standing Order of CCL. It has further been submitted that when this writ application was part heard and adjourned for further hearing, only to make an attempt to legalize their action, the respondents prepared a noting, which at Annexure C to the supplementary counter affidavit, to show that the project officer/disciplinary had taken approval of the competent authority in terms of 28.6 of the certified standing order before imposing punishment of dismissal on the ex-employee.