2025:JHHC:27412 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No1576 of 2020 ------- Chandeshwar Singh, aged about 59 years, Son of Jagannath Singh, Resident of B-22/30 Rajrappa Project, P.O.- Rajrappa Project P.S. - Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh, (Jharkhand); ...… Petitioner Versus (1) Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand; (2) The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. -G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand; (3) The General Manager (MP & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand; (4) The General Manager, Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Rajrappa, P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand; (5) The Project Officer at Rajrappa Project, Central Coalfields Limited, having its office at Rajrappa, P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Ramgarh, Jharkhand. Rajrappa, District .…. Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Adv. : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv. ------- 11/Dated:02.09.2025 1. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following relief:- (i) For quashing the charge sheet dated 12-07-2017 (Annexure-14), the dismissal order dated 09-11-2019 (Annexure-18) passed by Project Officer, Rajrappa Project & the Appellate Order dated 06- 2/3-2020 (Annexure-21) passed by Director(P) CCL. (ii) For quashing the order dated 22-08-2016 and 27-02- 2017 (Annexue-12 Series). By which petitioner was reverted back to the post of Cat-I. (iii) For directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in original post and pay the consequential benefits. 2025:JHHC:27412 2 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner was appointed as Cat-1 employee on 01-02-1979 and at the time of joining his date of birth was recorded in service record on the strength of school leaving certificate. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given several promotions along with other non-matriculate employees. Thereafter, on 20-03-2010 & 01-11-2015, despite the fact that Petitioner was non-matriculate, which was within knowledge of the Respondents, he was promoted to Clerical Special Grade and further to the post of T & S Grade "A". All of a sudden, on 25-07-2016 & 13-08-2016, by letter dated 25-07-2016, Petitioner was asked to submit matriculation certificate to which the Petitioner responded by stating that he is not a matriculate. On 22-08-2016 & 27-02-2017, due to Non- furnishing of Matric certificate Petitioner's promotions to the post of office superintendent in T & S Grade-A was cancelled and subsequently he was reverted to the post of Category-I without any notice/show cause OR any opportunity of hearing. 3. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred a Writ petition being WPS-6788/2017. Thereafter, on 12-07-2017, Petitioner was issued impugned chargesheet alleging that on basis of attested copy of his school leaving certificate enclosed in his service record in which his passing of matric exam was mentioned as 1976; his promotions up to post of office superintendent was affected and he never disclosed that he was not a matriculate and he was charged under misconduct clause of 26.1 and 26.9 of the certified standing order of the company. 2025:JHHC:27412 3 4. On 24-12-2018, in her Enquiry Report, the Inquiry officer held one of the charges was proved i.e. under 26.1 and the other charge i.e. under 26.9 was not proved. Thereafter on 5-11-2019, 2nd Show cause was severed to the petitioner to which the petitioner replied and subsequently on 09-11-2019, Impugned Order of dismissal was passed and W.P.S-6788/2017 was dismissed as Infructuous vide order dated 19-11-2019. On 25-11-2019, an Appeal was filed against the Dismissal Order which was rejected on 06-2/3/2020. Hence, this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner was neither a matriculate nor; at any point of time, either at the time of appointment or thereafter at any stage of time, ever submitted any educational certificate showing that he was matriculate, and the factum that the petitioner is not a matriculate was well known to the respondents, which is evident from the service sheet excerpts of the petitioner furnished to him in the year 1987 (Annexure-9), wherein the column of educational qualification did not reveal any qualification of matriculation in respect of the petitioner. Further, in the objection column of the service-sheet excerpts also he never furnished that he was a matric. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the Enquiry Report (Annexure-15) it has been mentioned, that the Petitioner has furnished wrong educational certificate which has not been proved and it is also the finding of the Inquiry officer in its report dated 24-12-2018 that "In service book of the petitioner, there is no entry of his educational qualification". Hence, the Charge of giving false information regarding name, age etc. under clause 26.9 have not been proved; as such the 2025:JHHC:27412 4 charge of theft, fraud etc. levelled against the petitioner under clause 26.1 cannot be said to be proved, as both the charge are interrelated. He lastly submits that in the 2nd show cause notice, the concerned authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry officer in its entirely as contained in his enquiry report. Still the disciplinary authority inflicted the Petitioner with punishment of Dismissal, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and fit to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the order of dismissal was issued in terms of powers conferred upon the Disciplinary Authority and the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to Central Coalfields Limited under clause 2.3 issued vide Circular No. 5544 dated 01.10.1999 issued by the G.M (P & IR), CCL, Ranchi. He further submits that the Appellate Authority after examining the entire matter in detail disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioner by its order dated 06.02/03.2020 holding that the order of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is just, legal and proper and does not require any interference as the same has been passed in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural justice and upon due consideration of the materials on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record it appears that there were two charges. First, with regard to submission of false matriculation certificate; secondly, on the basis of false matric education certificate, procurement of promotional post. 2025:JHHC:27412 5 The Inquiry officer has come to a definite conclusion that the charge of submission of the forged certificate in the service file of the Petitioner is not proved. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the first charge itself has not been proved; then on the basis of second charge, which is certainly interconnected with the first charge; how he has been terminated. Since it has not been proved that who has submitted the forged certificate in the service book of the Petitioner and admittedly, it was not the Petitioner who got promotion. Therefore, the subsequent punishment has no basis. 9. Though Ld. Counsel for the Respondent CCL submits that Annexure-5 is the recommendation letter of the Petitioner by the Sr. Personal officer in which by hand it is written that he is also a matriculate; however, he fairly admits that this Sr. Personnel officer has not been examined. It further transpires that this particular letter of recommendation 13.7.1984, has not been considered by the Inquiry officer. As a matter of fact, The Inquiry officer has in unequivocal term has held that "In service book of the petitioner, there is no entry of his educational qualification". Further the Inquiry officer has given a conclusive finding that the charge of submission of the forged certificate in the service file of the Petitioner is not proved. 10. Having regard to the admitted facts and circumstances of the case; admittedly, the Inquiry officer has categorically held that it is not certain as to who has given the forged certificate in the service file of the petitioner, as such, this court is of the considered opinion that, on the basis of this enquiry report, which has not 2025:JHHC:27412 6 been contradicted or decentered by the disciplinary authority, the charge of any punishment does not arise, inasmuch as, the subsequent charge is only on the basis of the primary charge of submission of forged certificate. 11. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the instant application is allowed and the impugned order of termination is quashed and set-aside Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation; the Respondent Coal Company is directed to take a rational decision regarding the petitioner’s monetary entitlements and consequential benefits, excluding back wages for the period between termination and age of superannuation. The Respondents shall also compute and restore all promotions granted to the petitioner where matriculation was not a requirement, and accordingly adjust the retirement benefits. 12. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of in the terms indicated hereinabove. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-