1 2025:CGHC:42206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1322 of 2023 1 - Anand S/o Shri Doman Uraon Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Choura, Police Station And Tahsil - Rajpur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coal Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum - Managing Director Sipat Road S.E.C.L. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited Bhatgaon Area District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited Sub Area Bhatgaon District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Mines Superintendent South Eastern Coalfield Limited Shivani Mines Bhatgaon Area District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 29.05.2011 Annexure P/3 issued by the Respondent No.2 reinstate the petitioner on the post of General Labo Category – 1 with all consequential benefits. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Category 1 in the S.E.C.L. Department pursuant to the rehabilitation policy following the acquisition of his land by S.E.C.L. on 29.08.2009 and was posted at Bhatgaon Colliery, where he was regularly working. However, a complaint was filed by villagers before the Deputy Collector, Ambikapur, alleging that the petitioner obtained employment on the basis of another person’s land records. Without recording any evidence or examining the petitioner’s land records, the Deputy Collector conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to Respondent No.2, which also resulted in the lodging of FIR No.120/2011 at Police Station Rajpur. Acting on this report, Respondent No.2 summarily removed the petitioner from service on 29.05.2011 without issuing any notice, conducting a departmental enquiry, or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the 3 applicable service rules. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges in Criminal Case No. 1175/2013 by judgment dated 01.10.2018. Despite this acquittal, the petitioner’s representation dated 19.11.2018 for reinstatement remains unacted upon. It is submitted that the petitioner’s removal was illegal and unjust, and in light of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Surendra vs. S.E.C.L. & Others (W.P. (S) No. 3302/2011 dated 28.10.2020) on similar facts, the petitioner deserves reinstatement and other consequential relief. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in the capacity of General Labor Category-1 in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). However, without initiating any departmental enquiry and without even issuing a show cause notice, the petitioner has been arbitrarily removed from service. It is further submitted that the removal order dated 29.05.2011 alleges that even assuming such an allegation, the respondent authorities were legally bound to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, wherein specific charges ought to have been framed and the petitioner should have been afforded full opportunity to respond and defend himself against such allegations. However, no such procedure was followed, thereby vitiating the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Surendra Vs. South Eastern 4 Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. 1 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present case is one wherein the petitioner has secured appointment by practicing fraud upon the authorities. It is contended that the petitioner falsely projected himself to be a land owner whose land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of SECL, and thereby managed to obtain employment under the rehabilitation policy. However, upon subsequent verification, it came to light that the petitioner is not the owner of the said land. He further submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the State Government, during the course of which it was categorically found that the petitioner had procured employment by relying upon forged and fabricated documents. In view of the findings of the enquiry, the petitioner's service was terminated. It is further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay against the order of removal dated 29.05.2011, and therefore, on the ground of delay and laches as well, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court has considered the nature of dispute in WPS No. 3302/2011 in which it has been held as under:- “As a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement in service. However, applying the principles 1 WPS No.3302 of 2011 decided on 28.10.2020 5 of “No Work No Pay” and also taking the long duration of time that has lapsed from the date of termination till now, the petitioner would not be entitled for any wages. However, he would be entitled for all other benefits of continuity of service. This Court having quashed the impugned order only on the ground of not conducting an inquiry, the right of the respondents stands reserved for conducting an inquiry and on being satisfied that the petitioner has fraudulently obtained employment, the respondents-Management would be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with the Service Rules or the standing order as the case may be governing the field.” 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety, and also taking into account the order passed in WPS No. 3302/2011, this Court finds that the impugned order of removal is unsustainable as without issuing any notice and without holding any enquiry order regarding removal from service has passed, that too without affording any opportunity of hearing which is illegal and is accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear that the delay in filing the present petition, as well as the period during which the petitioner did not render any service, shall be duly taken into account while reinstating the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any monetary or service-related benefits for the said period. 6 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 9. Furthermore, it is made clear that the concerned respondent authorities shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law and the applicable Service Rules, for taking action against the petitioner, including his removal from service, after following due process. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena