ANANDI RAM MAHTO SON OF LATE LALU RAM MAHTO, RESIDENT OF REHABILITATION SITE TANTRI, P.O. TUPKADIH, P.S. JARIDIH, DISTRICT BOKARO Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, BOKARO STEEL PLANT, BOKARO STEEL CITY, BOKARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 31.08.2000 (Annexure-4) and the letter dated 18.07.2003 (Annexure-7) as well as the letter dated 28.07.2003 (Annexure-10), issued by the Management, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City and further for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, commanding upon the respondents for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with arrears of back wages and the petitioner has further challenged the premature retirement on 30.11.2001 before the actual date of retirement i.e. 31.01.2006, basing on the BSL Record, School Leaving Certificate and the Medical Book.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Khalasi Staff No. 488925 under the Respondent Company, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City on 02.01.1981. Basing on the complaint lodged by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, the complaint case being No. 19 of 1996, T.R. No. 247 of 2000 was lodged against the petitioner along with five others of his family under Sec. 498 (A) and 323 of the I.P.C. and in the said complaint case, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bermo at Tenughat. The petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 43 of 2000 in which he has been acquitted vide order and judgment dated 29.11.2002, passed by the learned 05th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat. The Respondent-authority dismissed the petitioner from services vide order dated 31.08.2000 (Annexure-4) on the ground of conviction in a criminal case. After acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner has approached the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant on 21.12.2002 through the Conciliation Officer, Bokaro, but the Management refused to accept the claim of the petitioner. Again the petitioner submitted representation to the Respondent-Managing Director on 02.06.2003 for reinstatement in services but the Respondents-Management vide letter dated 28.07.2003, intimated the petitioner that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefits as evident from Annexure-10 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Respondents-Management, Bokaro Steel Plant vide letter dated 25.08.2004, for payment of post retirement benefits vide Annexure-11 to the writ application but the said representation failed to evoke any response from the respondents-authorities. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of dismissal from services, the petitioner left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the basis of dismissal of the petitioner was the conviction in a criminal case and after acquittal in the criminal case, the Respondent-authority ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for reinstatement in services from the date of dismissal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 31.11.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the B.S.L. Record, School Leaving Certificate, Medical Book categorically mentions the date of birth of the petitioner as 02.01.1946 and on that basis, he ought to have retired on 31.01.2006 on attaining the age of 60 years, but he has been made prematurely retired on 30.11.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner ought to have continued from 31.08.2000 to 31.01.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dismissal of the petitioner from services by the respondents-Management without assigning reason for dispensing the enquiry, is violative of the basic requirement of the natural justice and as such, the impugned order of dismissal is unsustainable in the eyes of law.