1 2025:CGHC:54295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3117 of 2017 1 - Somaru S/o Late Shri Shivlal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Minus Quarter No. 97, S. E. C. L. Manikpur Colliery, District Korba Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, P. S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006., Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Mankikpur Colliery, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Mankikpur Colliery, Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Adv. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:- 10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 15.03.2017, (Annexure P-1) 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.09.2016 (Annexure P-2). 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the enquiry report dated 2 17.08.2016. (Annexure P-3). 10.5. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to reinstate the petitioner in service along with back wages and consequential benefits be allowed. 10.6. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was given a compassionate appointment in 1993 after his father's death and has since served the department with sincerity. Considering his service, the respondent company has timely promoted him, continually evaluating his potential, until the charge sheet was issued. The charge sheet, issued on April 20, 2016, while he was working as a Loading Operator at Manikpur Colliery, alleges that he is working under the name Somaru Sai, and his original name is Virindavan @ Bhagiya, permanent resident of Vill-Khajipali, Block- Purushottampur, Dist-Ganjam (Orissa). The petitioner is accused of gross misconduct under Sections 26.9 and 26.22 for failing to submit required documents and witnesses during an inquiry. The petitioner categorically denied the allegations in his reply, asserting he committed no misconduct and performed his duties. He claims he was not provided with the documents or detailed allegations justifying the charge sheet. During the subsequent departmental inquiry, the petitioner denied the charges and requested documents for his defense, which was denied. He contends the allegations are false, made with mala fide intention. He submitted documents confirming his identity as Somaru, S/o Shivlal, but the inquiry committee, without verification, concluded he is using a false identity and that his original name and address relate to the State of Orissa. The petitioner categorically requested the documents to counter the allegations but was denied the opportunity to do so. The submissions made by the petitioner were not considered, and the departmental enquiry concluded on 17.08.2016. The Inquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report that was contrary to the findings recorded during the enquiry, without considering the submission and evidence on record, and without further considering the fact that 3 neither the document nor the charge sheet was given to the petitioner, nor were the witnesses he named examined during the inquiry. The inquiry was a mere formality. The disciplinary authority passed the impugned non-speaking order on 18.09.2016, imposing dismissal from service without considering the reply or evidence, and in utter disregard of natural justice. The appellate authority mechanically affirmed this, leading to the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Loading Operator with the respondent. A complaint was made against the petitioner alleging that he was working with the respondents in somebody else name. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, and upon its completion, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide an office order dated 18.09.2016 (Annexure P-2). Against which, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No.2, which was also dismissed vide its impugned order dated 15.03.2017 (Annexure P-1). Challenging both orders, the present writ petition has been filed. He submits that although the departmental enquiry leveled allegations that the petitioner was working with the respondents using a forged and fabricated identity, a proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to him. It is submitted that as a result, the petitioner could not defend himself in departmental enquiry, therefore, the entire departmental enquiry is vitiated. Therefore, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 may be set aside. 4. A return on behalf of respondents has been filed, and it is contended therein that a due enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner is working in the name of one Somaru, who is a resident of Odisha, whereas he had shown his resident at Ambikapur. Due opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to defend himself in the departmental enquiry, however, he himself did not appear on many occasions despite sufficient opportunity being granted by the respondents. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of his termination was passed which was duly considered by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.2. There are two concurrent findings of fact in 4 this regard, therefore, this writ petition does not have the merit and this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence brought before the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The charge against the petitioner which appears from the enquiry report is as under:- ቦኍ सोमारू, लोिሣग ऑपरेटरे, मानिकपरे मा पदቝኋनिपत, क दिदए गए अभियोग प्ቔ ्ቅमा#क मानिकपरे/खा.्ቚ./16/बी/2016/158 दिद#क 20/04/2016 मा लोगयो गए आरेप इसो ्ቚकरे ैሻ*.- निक, ቦኍ सोमारू क नि+रु्ቍ शि/कयोत ्ቚप्त हुई ैሻ3 निक + फቌኍ6 तरेक सो 7करे करे रेैሻ ैሻ*. उक +स्तनि+क मा +:#द+ आत्माቌኍ निगयो ैሻ3, ए+# ቝኋयो पत ቇኋमा-खाቌኍपलो, ब्लो>क-परुषो्ቈमापरे, जिቌኍलो-ग#ቌኍमा ्ቚ#त-उ़ቡसो ैሻ3, निकन्त + फቌኍ6 रूप सो ቦኍ सोमारू आत्माቌኍ शि/+लोलो, ቝኋयो पत ቇኋमा- परिरेयो, पस्ट-कल्योपरे, था-अቚኌHबीकपरे, जिቌኍलो-सोरेगቌኍ, छ्ቈसोगढ़क मा सो 7करे ्ቚप्त निकयो हुए ैሻ*. निक, ቦኍ सोमारू क ऊपरे ቌኍ आरेप लोगयो गयो ैሻ3 +ैሻ क# प क ቝኋयो आद/ कL निH अबी#ध सो#ख्यो क उल्लोघ पयो ቌኍत ैሻ3- 26.9 अप रेቌኍगरे क सोHबी्቏ मा मा, उमा, निपत क मा, योग्योत आदिद क सोHबी्቏ मा गलोत सोRच द. 26.22 ቌኍबीRझकरे निकयो गयो ऐसो कयोV जिቌኍसोसो अ/सो #ग ैሻत ैሻ यो जिቌኍसोसो क# प क निैሻतW कL ैሻनि ैሻत ैሻ. 7. From the record, it appears that the petitioner was working with the respondent as a Loading Operator. A complaint was made which is filed as Annexure R-1 (colly.) by the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress (RCMC) indicating that the petitioner is not the person whose name was being used. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner with regard to allegations against the petitioner. After due consideration, it also appears that some show-cause notices were also issued to the petitioner with regard to the conduct of the departmental enquiry. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the impugned Annexure P-2 was passed which also indicates that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law despite serious 5 allegation against the petitioner, any family member of the alleged father of Shivlal was present for recording the evidence. Though it has been stated that two witnesses were brought forward during the course of enquiry. However, without any proper identification and later on they did not appear in the departmental enquiry. The respondent has also not brought any witnesses with regard to his native place and after considering the entire evidence available on record, it has been found by the enquiry officer that the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned differently in different documents, the original Somaru had already resigned from the services in the year 2001 and died about 8-10 years ago, and his wife is being paid the pension. It has also been observed that the permanent address of the petitioner is recorded differently in different documents in form No. PS-3, PS-4. One permanent address of the petitioner is recorded as Pursottampur, District Ganjam (Orissa) whereas another permanent address has been recorded as Village Paripa District Surguja. It has further been observed by the Enquiry Officer that, according to the service record, the date of birth of father of Somaru is 18.09.1934 and he was a native of Kalyanpur District Surguja (CG). It has also been observed that in the school certificate of son of the petitioner, his surname is mentioned as Sasmal and he is recorded as a resident of Odisha. This surname is commonly used by residents of Odisha. Considering all aspects of the matter, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner is working on a forged basis and his permanent address is Village Khajipali, Block- Purshottampur, District Ganjam (Orissa), whereas he is working in a forged manner in the name of Somaru son of Shivlal whose permanent address is Village Paripa, Kalyanpur, Thana- Ambikapur, District Surguja. The petitioner has suppressed his true identity and age. The Enquiry Officer ultimately found the charges against the petitioner proved. 8. From perusal of enquiry report it appears that the documents presented by the parties have been duly considered, and the defence of the petitioner was also taken into consideration. The report further reflects that cross examination was also conducted by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer also considered the arguments advanced by the 6 petitioner and the respondents. It also reflects that the petitioner was also given proper opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry and thus the enquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner to be proved, therefore, relying upon the enquiry report, the impugned order (Annexure P-2) was passed. The finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer has been upheld by the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner (Annexure P-1) dated 15.03.2017. Thus, the law is very well-settled that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to re- appreciate the evidence brought before the Departmental enquiry and the finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse or by passing any evidence available on the enquiry. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612, this Court does not find any merit in this case. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. No costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.11 12:24:22 +0530