2025:JHHC:10337 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1535 of 2020 ------ Shyamjee Singh, son of late Sudarshan Singh, aged about 61 years, resident of Regional Hospital Colony Dhori, Near Shiv Mandir, PO Bermo, PS Bermo, District Bokaro. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 2. The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O., G.P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. The General Manager, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro. 4. The Project Officer, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro. 5. The Staff Officer (Mining), Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro. 6. The Office Superintendent (Establishment), Office of General Manager, Dhori Area, Central Coalfields Limited, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ 11/03.04.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent – CCL. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order of punishment as contained in Memo bearing Ref. No.:GM(D)/PD/19-20/787 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service consequent upon a departmental proceeding. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioner but the Disciplinary Authority differed with the same. It is his contention that the reasons for differing has not been provided 2025:JHHC:10337 2 to the petitioner and without providing the reasons, the respondents could not have punished the petitioner. He further submits that he has obtained employment as the son-in-law of Kaushalya Devi, who has obtained VRS under the Scheme floated by the Central Coalfields Limited. He further submits that the principle of natural justice was not followed, as no proper time was granted to the petitioner to give a reply to the second show cause notice. On this ground, he prays to set aside the order of punishment. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – CCL, submits that this writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. As per him, the petitioner should have raised an industrial dispute. The petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. He further submits that even if this Court entertains this writ petition, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while deciding a writ petition involving punishment in a departmental proceeding is very limited. The procedure of law has been followed and thereafter the order of punishment has been passed. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of obtaining employment by fraudulent means. If an appointment is obtained by fraudulent means, it goes to the root and his appointment is void ab initio. 5. The respondents have raised a ground of alternative remedy. Since I have heard the parties at length and this writ petition was filed in the year 2020 and is pending here, I am inclined to hear this writ petition and dispose the same in the interest of justice, without relegating the petitioner to other forum. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Coalfields Limited after his mother-in-law had obtained VRS. His mother- 2025:JHHC:10337 3 in-law is Kaushalya Devi. It was later on detected that the petitioner has obtained employment by fraud, as Kaushalya Devi was not the mother of his wife. 7. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated. In the departmental proceeding, the witnesses were examined including the wife of this petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report. The report has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the Supplementary Affidavit. 8. The enquiry report though is a bit vague but I find that from the enquiry report, a fact which transpires that Bhanmati is the wife of this petitioner but as per the inquiry report she is the daughter of Kaushalya Devi and Muniya Devi is not the legal daughter of Kaushalya Devi. 9. Once the enquiry report was submitted, the Disciplinary Authority differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and served a second show cause notice dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-11/1 to the supplementary affidavit), to the petitioner. In the second show cause notice, it has been categorically mentioned that the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the report of Enquiry Officer. The copy of the enquiry report and the dissent note was sent along with the second show cause notice to the petitioner. Though, the dissent note is not on record but the ground on which the dissent was made has been reproduced in the reasoned order which disposed the Departmental Appeal. Paragraph-vi is the dissent on which the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the enquiry report. The grounds are as follows:- (vi) “The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Enquiry Report and issued following Dissent Note: a. The Sarpanch and Mukhiya of Village Basadih has certified that Sri. Ramenshwar karmali (Lohar) and Smt. Kaushalya Devi had only one daughter named Muniya Devi alongwith 05 brother (ME-7,8,9) duly supports the fact. b. In the enquiry proceeding Sri. Shyamji Singh has accepted that Smt. Kaushalya Devi had only daughter 2025:JHHC:10337 4 named Bhanmati but the Mukhiya /Sarpanch has certified that rameshwar karmali (Lohar) and Smt. Kaushalya Devi had 06 children and the name of daughter is Muniya Devi W/o- Sri. Suraj Karmali. (ME 7,8,9). C. The Aadhar card of Sri. Kapil karmali proves that he is son of Sri. Rameshwar karmali and his statement before Mukhiya proves that he had 04 brothers and 01 sister named Muniya Devi who is married to Sri. Suraj Karmali (ME-8) (ME-9). d. In the proceeding on the page 15 the witness of Sri. Shyamji Singh (you), Sri. Sant Singh stated that the marriage of Sri. Shyamji Singh (you) happened with consent of Sri. Rameshwar Karmali and he did not object for his marriage. This statement of Sri. Sant Singh is false as Sri. Rameshwar Karmali died 02 years before the marriage date as stated by Sri. Shyamji Singh(you). e. In the proceeding the witness of Sri. Shyamji Singh(you) stated that the husband of Smt. Kaushalya Devi was not the employee of CCL and he was not working anywhere. But in the Form - B of Smt. Kaushalya Devi her husband's name Sri. Rameshwar Mistry is written and he was working in Dhori Colliery. f. The witness of Sri. Shyamji Singh(you) i.e. Sri. Sant Singh stated that he do not know the name of Sri. Shyamji Singh's (your's) wife. This proves that he is a tutored witness and despite being the neighbour of Sri. Shyamji Singh(you) and Smt. Kaushalya Devi he is not aware of the name of Sri. Shyamji Singh's (your's) wife. g. In the proceeding Sri. Shyamji Singh (you) said that he father - in-law died in 1976 but he do not remember the date of demise of his mother in law who died after her husband. This creates doubt that Sri. Shyamji Singh (you) did not know Smt. Kaushalya Devi despite the fact that he took care of Smt. Kaushalya Devi as admitted by him. h. Sri. Shyamji Singh(you) said that his wife had no brother, sister but as per Sri. Kapil Karmali son of Sri. Rameshwar Karmali and Mukhiya and Sarpanch of Basadih there is only one family with the name of Sri. Rameshwar Karmali and Smt. Kaushalya Devi and they had 06 children 05 son and 01 daughter (ME-7,9) i. Sri. Shyamji Singh (you), in proceeding said that he never went to his Sasural, this creates doubt that he does not know any one Basadih. j. Sri. Shyamji Singh (you) has not been able to defend the charges through conclusive evidences and the evidence of the management are sufficient to proof the charges levelled against him. 2025:JHHC:10337 5 10. From the second show cause notice, I find that there is a reference of this dissent note and it has been specifically mentioned that this dissent note and the enquiry report are enclosed with the second show cause notice and has been sent to this petitioner. Nowhere in the writ petition, the petitioner has denied the fact that the dissent note was not served upon the petitioner. Though, learned counsel representing the petitioner orally argues that the petitioner has not received the dissent note, yet from the petition, I find that no such statement has been made in the writ petition. In absence of such statement in the writ petition and also in view of the positive averment in the second show cause notice that this dissent note is a part of the second show cause notice, it is not proper to hold that the petitioner was not served with the dissent note along with the second show cause notice. 11. It is well settled that a Disciplinary Authority can differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but the reasons have to be communicated to the delinquent employee. In this case, the reasons have been communicated. The reasons have been reproduced hereinabove. From the reasonings therein, I find in paragraph-6 (a) and (b) of the dissent note, it has been mentioned that the witness who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Basadih, had deposed that Kaushalya Devi had only one daughter whose name is Muniya Devi and she has been married to Suraj Karmali. These facts have been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority while differing with the enquiry report. 12. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the second show cause notice but he prayed for time and ultimately did not file the reply. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter found the petitioner guilty of the charge of obtaining employment by impersonation and dismissed him from service. 13. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in judicial review, scope of interference by this Court in the departmental proceeding is 2025:JHHC:10337 6 very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey” reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 21.1 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao [1963 AIR SC 1723], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can also interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:- (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based; (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 14. Considering the aforesaid judgments and the facts and the law that this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority, I find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in conducting the departmental proceeding. Further the entire 2025:JHHC:10337 7 issue is based on fact. The fact finding authority has found the petitioner to be an importer who obtained employment by fraud. Fraud vitiates all action. Further this factual finding cannot be set aside in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The impugned order as contained in Memo bearing Ref. No.:GM(D)/PD/19-20/787 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the Appellate Order as contained in Memo bearing Ref No.CCL/P&IR/Estt./2019-20/3711 dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-10), thus cannot be interfered with. I find no merit in this writ petition. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/Cp-2 AFR