2026:JHHC:3689 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2132 of 2023 ------ Khairat Hari, son of late Mukhlal Hari, resident of village and P.O Panjania, P.S. Barwadda, District- Dhanbad. .. Petitioner(s) -Versus- 1. Central Coalfields Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, a Government of India Undertaking, office at Darbhanga House, P.O GPO Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi, through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director. 2. The Director (Personnel)/Appellate Authority, Central Coalfields Limited, office at Darbhanga House, P.O GPO Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. The Project Officer/Disciplinary Authority, Bokaro Colliery, Bokaro & Karganli (B&K), Area of Central Coalfields Limited, P.O Sunday Bazaar, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District- Bokaro. ...Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s A.K. Sahani and Vikesh Kumar, Advocates. For the CCL Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate. ------- 05/11.02.2026: Heard the parties. 2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 17.11.2022 passed in Departmental Appeal (Annexure-9) and the office order issued under Memo No. PO/BKO/PD/Dismissal/2021/897 dated 29.9.2021 (Annexure-7), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services of respondent No.1 Company and also for an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all monetary and consequential benefit and reinstate him. 3. The petitioner was an employee of Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), employed on 4.11.1986 on compassionate ground on account of death of death of Mukhlal Hari, who the petitioner claims to be his adoptive father. After serving more than 31 years, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 31.7.2017 alleging therein that the petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Mukhlal Hari but there is no adoption deed to substantiate his claim. The second charge is that, his biological father Mahavir Hari continues to reside with him in an illegally occupied quarters being Qtr. No. 214 miner type quarters, adjacent to the quarter allotted to the petitioner i.e. Qrt. No. 213. The petitioner denied the charge. A Departmental Proceeding was 1 2026:JHHC:3689 initiated and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of different witnesses and after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the enquiry report was submitted. The Disciplinary Authority served the second show cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner, but ultimately vide order dated 29.09.2021, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Thereafter the appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.11.2022, which resulted in filing this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after 31 years of serving the respondents, the respondents could not have dismissed the petitioner from service on the ground non-availability of adoption deed. He admits that though there is no deed of adoption, but at the time of appointment, the petitioner never suppressed that he is the adopted son of Mukhlal Hari. The petitioner was adopted way back in the year 1970 at the age of 5 years and he was appointed on 4.11.1986, therefore his dismissal from service on this ground is absolutely bad. He also submits that even the findings of the Enquiry Officer is also perverse. He further submits that the petitioner got promotion in service and this issue was never raised by the respondents, thus after 31 years of service, the petitioner cannot be dismissed. He also submits that second charge that his biological father was residing in a quarter unauthorizedly, cannot be a misconduct attributed upon the petitioner, thus this charge is non est. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the CCL opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner obtained employment by playing fraud. He contends that admittedly the biological father of the petitioner is Mahavir Hari, which the petitioner also admits. He further submits that in a case of adoption, there has to be a legal adoption deed and in absence of the said deed, the petitioner cannot be treated to be the adopted son of Mukhlal Hari, thus once the appointment has been obtained by playing fraud, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986. The charge-sheet was issued in the year 2017 i.e. after 31 years alleging that the petitioner did not produce any adoption deed, which suggests that he is the adopted son of Mukhlal Hari. The second charge against the petitioner is that his biological father resides in quarters 2 2026:JHHC:3689 adjacent to the quarters of the petitioner but in unauthorized manner. There is no doubt on the proposition of law that this Court is not an Appellate Court while deciding the matter in relation to Disciplinary Enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The scope of interference is very limited but when the findings are perverse and the charge is non est, this Court can very well interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 7. In this case, I find that the second charge cannot be attributed to this petitioner. If the biological father of this petitioner is residing unauthorizedly in a quarters, the petitioner cannot be responsible for the same. Further there is no allegation that the petitioner has taken part in any of the acts which facilitated his father to reside in the said quarters. 8. So far as first charge is concerned, admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 on compassionate ground. It is not a case that he obtained the appointment by declaring that he is the biological son of the deceased employee- Mukhlal Hari. After appointment of the petitioner, he was allowed to work 31 years. He was granted promotion and all other benefits. Suddenly on one fine morning, the respondents issued charge- sheet alleging that there is no adoption deed so he cannot be treated to be an adopted son of Mukhlal hari. 9. To adjudicate this issue, I find that it is admitted by both parties that there is no adoption deed, evidence of one of the witnesses of CCL, namely, Swayam Prakash is very important. This witness stated he has recorded the statement of the petitioner who stated that biologically he was the eldest son of Mahavir Hari. This witness also stated before the Enquiry Officer that the said Mahavir Hari was also an employee of the CCL. He categorically stated that when the service record of Mahavir Hari was scanned, it was found that the names of his son and daughters are reflected in the service record. From his statement, it is clear that he did not found the name of this petitioner as the son of Mahavir Hari in the service record of Mahavir Hari. 10. The aforesaid findings clearly suggest that the petitioner was not treated to be the son of the biological father, otherwise, his name should have been there in the service records of Mahavir Hari. This fact fortifies the fact that the petitioner was adopted by Mukhlal Hari. 11. Admittedly, there is no adoption deed, but after 31 years of 3 2026:JHHC:3689 service, the respondents cannot be allowed to wreak up this issue when admittedly the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground treating him to be the son of deceased employee- Mukhlal Hari. 12. Thus I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned orders dated 17.11.2022 passed in Departmental Appeal (Annexure-9) and the office order issued under Memo No. PO/BKO/PD/Dismissal/2021/897 dated 29.9.2021 (Annexure-7) are quashed and set aside. 13. Since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuated on 31st October, 2025, there cannot be any order to reinstate him. Thus, I direct the respondents to pay the retiral benefits of the petitioner considering the period, which he was out of service and the same should be treated to be continuity in service and he will be entitled for monetary benefits for the said period i.e. salary, back wages etc., which will be paid after deducting the contribution of CMPF etc. from the said amount. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. February 11, 2026. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu-Cp2. Uploaded on: 16.02.2026 4