2026:JHHC:2913 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.219 of 2023 ----- Deepak Kumar, S/o Late Janeshawar Ram, Ex- General Mazdoor, Cat-I, Sel. Dhori O/c Mine, R/o Dhori Staff Quarter, Near Masjid, Dhori, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum -Managing Director, having its Registered Office at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi 2.The General Manager (P&IR), having its office at Darbhanga House, C.C.L., Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 3.The Director (Personnel), Central Coalfields Ltd, Darbhanga House, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi 4.The Senior Manager (Personnel), Dhori Colliery, Central Coalfields Ltd., having its office of the Project Officer, Dhori Colliery, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro 5.The Project Officer, OSM, Kalyani Project, Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate Ms. Manjusri Patra, Advocate Ms. Mahua Palit, Advocate For the Resp-CCL : Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate …...... 12/ 04.02.2026: Heard, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-CCL. 2. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-7), by which the respondents have dismissed the petitioner from service of Central Coalfields Limited. Further the Appellate Order dated 28.10.2022 (Annexure-10) is also under challenged. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for allegedly furnishing misleading and false information, by the father of this petitioner, the petitioner has been punished. She submits that from the charge and also from the impugned order, it is clear that main allegations are in against the father of this petitioner, to the effect that he has obtained employment fraudulently. As the father of the petitioner died serving after more than 34 years, this petitioner was granted the benefit of the compassionate appointment. Now the respondents by the impugned order as questioned and doubted the appointment of father of the petitioner, hence removed the petitioner from service, which is illegal. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-CCL submits that the father of the petitioner had obtained appointment in Central Coalfields Limited by fraudulent means, suppressing relevant facts and also manipulating his genealogy. Since, father of the petitioner obtained appointment in Central Coalfields Limited by fraudulent means, his appointment is treated to be void, thus the petitioner also cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. He further submits that this petitioner has also submitted some wrong information regarding his brother and sister, thus, this petitioner is also not entitled for appointment. He lastly submits that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner as he can raise an Industrial Dispute. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that it is admitted that father of the petitioner served the respondents for 34 years. While the father of this petitioner was in appointment, the respondents did not raise any issues nor raised any question with regard to his appointment. It is also admitted that after death of the father of this petitioner, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment and the same was granted to him and he was appointed. Petitioner was appointed on 26.09.2014 and thereafter on 14.10.2016 a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, doubting the appointment of his father on the ground that his father had submitted some false information i.e. wrong genealogical table and his parentage, at the time of appointment. Further, it was alleged that this petitioner had also given some wrong information and supplied wrong date of death of his brother and -2- sister. Based on the aforesaid chargesheet, a departmental proceeding was initiated. After conclusion of departmental proceeding, petitioner was served the second show-cause notice and thereafter dismissed from the service. 6. From the entire record, I find that the main allegation of obtaining appointment by fraud is against the father of this petitioner. Admittedly, the respondents did not take any action when the father of this petitioner was alive. He served for more than 34 years and died. After his death, this petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. It is further alleged that the petitioner has given some wrong information with an intention to hide his antecedents and to hide the wrong information, which his father namely, Janeshawar Ram had given at the time of his appointment. From the chargesheet and from the record, I find that it is not the case of the respondents- employer that this petitioner is not the son of Janeshawar Ram. They have not denied nor doubted that the petitioner is son of Janeshawar Ram. That being so, he cannot be punished for the mislead, if any, of his father. The respondents should have taken action against the father of the petitioner while he was in service. Admittedly, the same has not been done, but only after his father died and after this petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, the respondents started doubting the genealogy of the father of this petitioner. 7. Thus, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 in this writ petition, as the respondents could not have terminated the service of this petitioner on the ground of some false information or wrong information given by his father when admittedly, his father was not proceeded against. 8. So far as the ground of alternative remedy raised by the respondents is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the same as though there is provision that workmen can raise an industrial dispute -3- but since this is a case of dismissal and this writ petition was filed in the year, 2023 and we are in the year, 2026 and the issue does not involve complicated question of fact. Further, I find that issues involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment in L.P.A. No.445 of 2018 and analogous cases (Central Coal Field Limited vs. Manoj Kumar and Others). Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-7) is set aside. Consequently, the Appellate Order dated 28.10.2022 is also set aside. 9. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. 10. With regard to back wages, considering the facts of this case and circumstance that the petitioner has not been in service for a considerable period, the respondents are directed to pay 25% back wages to the petitioner. However, the period which this petitioner was out of service, shall be considered as a continuous service for all consequential benefits. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 04th February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 09 /02/2026. -4-