Rambali Mahto vs Central Coal Fields Limited and Others

D.N. Patel, J.—The present petition has been preferred by an employee of the respondent-Central Coalfields Ltd., who was working as Class IV employee from 18th December, 1973 and who has retired on 22nd March, 2002, after putting the services of 29 long years. Never any objection was raised by the respondents about this Class IV employee about his nature of work or for any reason, whatsoever. Thus, the petitioner has worked sincerely, diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents, without any stigma attached to his service career. After his retirement, a so called complaint has been received from some complainant, who has never been examined by the Inquiring Officer, and after retirement of the petitioner-employee, a report has been submitted by the Inquiring Officer on 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner was really never appointed as Class IV employee and there is impersonation by the petitioner in the year, 1973 and thereafter. Thus, all the retirement benefits have been withheld by the respondents, only on this ground and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has always remained obedient Class IV employee and he has worked to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any show cause notice has been issued nor any objection has been raised about the petitioner nor for his working style. Moreover, in all service records, the name and photograph of the petitioner have been attached in several documents, which are in the custody of the respondents, like:

(a) Service Register;

(b) Identity Card;

(c) Gratuity Nomination Form-F

(d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form-A

Thus, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these are the documents, which are in custody and knowledge and possession of the respondent-Management. Some documents have been further forwarded to the Provident Fund or Pension authorities. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that still there are documents with the respondents of the petitioner, who has worked for 29 long years, but, they are without photographs, like; Leave Report, Sick Report etc. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no question of any impersonation, whatsoever. The petitioner is the son of Karu Mahto and even his father was also serving in Kedla Mines (before nationalization). Time and again the petitioner has stated that he has never visited his birth place and the petitioner had to remain with his father at difference places and, therefore, matching of the retirement time photograph or a photograph in the service records, in a particular village before some villagers is not a correct evidence that the petitioner is not Rambali Mahto son of Karu Mahto. There was enough time with the respondents, right from 1973 to 2002 to verify all the facts, which are stated in the service records, but, never any objection has been raised by anyone, much less by the respondent-Management and after his peaceful retirement, on a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint, unnecessarily the petitioner''s retirement benefits have been withheld.

It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that firstly the complainant has never been examined by the Inquiring Officer and secondly, two co-employees, namely, Govind Munda and Shankar Par, have already stated that the petitioner has worked as a Class IV employee from 1978 onwards with the respondents and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Inquiring Officer and the Inquiring Officer has only relied upon the statements, made by some persons of Village-Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village-Soso and that too, upon showing a photograph of the petitioner. Petitioner is not knowing which photograph was shown to whom, upon whose statements, much reliance has been placed by the Inquiring. Officer nor the petitioner was kept present at the said two villages. Even an opportunity of cross-examining the said person/persons of Village-Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village - Soso was never given to the petitioner. Thus, what question was asked to whom and that too by showing what photograph has not been brought at the touchstone of the cross-examination. Thus, the evidence upon which inquiry report is based, is no evidence at all, whereas, as stated hereinabove, two co-employees have given depositions in favour of the petitioner and in absence of examination of the complainant, the report of the Inquiring Officer, which is dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) is based upon no evidence and is non-est, which has been concluded much after the retirement of the petitioner i.e. after March, 2002 onwards. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is never willing to go within the campus of the respondents, as he has already retired and after retirement, no question of further misuse of any fund, whatsoever, arises and, in fact, the petitioner has worked sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for 29 long years and, therefore, by quashing and setting aside the order of the Inquiring Officer/Committee dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition), let the respondents be directed to make payment of the legally payable retirement benefits under different headings, like; Provident Fund, Pension, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, and such other legally payable benefits.

I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the petitioner is not the son of Karu Mahto and he has served for all 29 years by impersonating himself and this fact has been revealed after retirement of the present petitioner, upon a complaint made by somebody and, thereafter, in pursuance of an order, passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 (disposed of on 25th April, 2007), which is at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, an Inquiry Committee was constituted and the Inquiry Committee has arrived at a conclusion vide its report dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner is not the son of Karu Mahto and, therefore, in pursuance of the order, passed in the aforesaid writ petition at Annexure 6 to the memo of petition, the actions have been initiated by forfeiting all the retirement benefits, mainly on the ground of impersonation, right from the very beginning and, therefore, this writ petition deserved to be dismissed in limine.

Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:

(i) The petitioner was employed as a Class IV employee with the respondents on 18th December, 1973 and he was working to the satisfaction of the respondents till he reached the age of superannuation i.e. on 22nd March, 2002. Thus, the petitioner has served for 29 long years and never any objection has been raised by the respondents about impersonation of the petitioner nor about the working style of the petitioner and never any dissatisfaction has been reflected by the respondents towards the services, rendered by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has worked with the respondents right from December, 1973 to March, 2002 sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents and without having any stigma to his service records;

(ii) After petitioner''s retirement, some undated complaint was received by the respondent-Management on 4th July, 2002. Thereafter, unending inquiry was started, but, meanwhile the respondents withheld the payment of retirement benefits of the petitioner and, therefore, a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 was instituted by the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25th April, 2007 (Annexure 6 to the memo of petition), wherein, it was ordered that a long drawn inquiry ought to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if it was not so completed. The relevant part of the said order dated 25th April, 2007 in W.P.(S) No. 1085 of 2005 reads as under:

In the circumstances, the General Manager (P & IR), CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi (respondent No. 3) is directed to see that the committee enquires into the matter and takes a decision, if not already taken, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. If any decision has already been taken, the same be communicated to the petitioner immediately. If it is found that petitioner is genuine claimant and he has not impersonated, it goes without saying that his claims should be processed and paid in accordance with law without any delay.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

(iii) Thus, in view of the aforesaid observation, the petition was disposed of and a long drawn inquiry was bound to be completed thereafter and a report was given by the Inquiring Committee on 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition), wherein, it has been held that the present petitioner was not the son of Karu Mahto and there was impersonation. Thus, after retirement of the petitioner from 22nd March, 2002, the inquiry was concluded on 10th July, 2007. Thus, after several years the report has been given at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition;

(iv) Now looking closely to the report of the Inquiring Officer, it appears that a photograph of the present petitioner was shown to some of the villagers of Village-Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village - Soso, where some villagers, on the basis of their observations, memory and reproduction, gave evidence that the person in the photograph is not the son of Karu Mahto and Karu Mahto was having only two sons and there is no third son like Rambali Mahto. Mainly on this basis, a report has been submitted after several years from retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner was employed on 18th December, 1973 and the report of impersonation comes in July, 2007.

(v) It also appears that:

(a) There is co-employee, who was examined, namely, Govind Munda, who has given deposition in favour of the petitioner that this very petitioner, who is Rambali Mahto son of Karu Mahto, has worked as Class IV employee from 1978 onwards i.e. from the date of his knowledge;

(b) Likewise, deposition has been given by one Shankar Par, who has also stated before the Inquiring Committee that the present petitioner, who is Rambali Mahto son of Karu Mahto, has served for several years with the respondents and was co-employee with him;

(c) The so-called complainant, who is alleged to have filed the complaint, after retirement of the petitioner, has never been examined;

(d) It has been stated by the petitioner as per the inquiry report that he has never visited these villagers from where the statements have been recorded of some persons upon whom much reliance has been placed by the respondents by showing a photograph of the petitioner;

(e) No opportunity of cross-examining those villagers of Village-Khajawati (Bodhgaya) as well as of Village - Soso has been given to the petitioner. Thus, what photograph was shown to those villagers, whose statements were recorded and who are they, everything has been kept in dark and such statements have not been allowed to be tested at the touchstone of the cross-examination, which is a most vital part of the inquiry, especially when any inquiry is being conducted after 29 long years'' services of the petitioner and that too after his retirement. The present photograph or the photograph of 1973 from service records of the petitioner may not be matched with the memory of those villagers. All these depend upon capacity of observation, memory and reproduction of any witness, when he is giving statement. This aspect of the matter, which affects the very root of the case has been lost sight of and a Class IV employee has been saddled with a stigma that from 1973 there was impersonation, which has been found out in the month of July, 2007 and that too with the aforesaid open ended inquiry or by let loosing crucial aspects of the inquiry.

(v) It ought to be kept in mind by the respondent-Management that whenever Class IV employee has worked sincerely, diligently, honestly and to their satisfaction and that too, for approximately three long decades, upon a frivolous complaint, which is absolutely undated and the complainant is not ready to come forward to give evidence, in such a situation it is always advisable to decide the case in favour of their honest, sincere and diligent employees, who have proved their metal, especially when they are Class IV employees, (vi) In view of several documents like:

(a) Service Register;

(b) Identity Card;

(c) Gratuity Nomination Form-F

(d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form-A

which reveal photograph as well as name of the petitioner, there were enough opportunities with the respondents from 1973 to 2002 to verify the data of the petitioner. The service book is being signed, every year by the high-ranking officer of the respondent-C.C.L.

(vii) Looking to the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no impersonation. Petitioner is a son of Karu Mahto. He has served for 29 long years, as legally and validly appointed peon.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby hold that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiring Committee dated 10th July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) is non-est, as crucial evidence has not been appreciated and considered whereas irrelevant evidence has been considered. States of witnesses upon which reliance has been placed, were never presented for cross-examination and, thus, the inquiry report is based upon no evidence and, therefore, I hereby quash and set aside the said report, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition, and I hereby direct the respondents to make payment of all the legally payable retirement benefits, including, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment, if any, and such other benefits, as expeditiously as possible and practicable.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.