Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) A Writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to transmit up to this Court all records relating to the purported Memo No, ECL/RJML/CGM/BH-125 dated September 10, 1986 issued by the respondent No. 6 (Annexure 'H') so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same; (b) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, revoke, rescind, cancel and/or withdraw and not to communicate and/or publish Memo No. ECL/RJML/ CGM/BH- 125 dated September 10, 1986 (Annexure 'H') herein issued by the respondent No. 5 and further commanding the respondents not to give effect and/or further effect to the said Memo containing the order of termination and/or not to act or proceed in any manner pursuant thereto". The impugned order in the writ application is the order of termination of service of the petitioners issued by the Chief General Manager, Rajmahal area under office order dated 10th September, 1986. Initially when the matter was moved, an interim order dated 23rd September, 1986 was passed by U.C. Banerjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) and such interim order of status quo was extended till disposal of the application by subsequent order dated 29th September, 1986. In pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court the office order terminating the service of the petitioners were not given effect to and they are continuing in service. This writ application has been opposed by filing affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. A supplementary affidavit also has been filed by the petitioners incorporating the subsequent facts as was affirmed on 8th day of May, 1995.
(2.) The facts leading to the writ application are as follows : The petitioners were appointed as trainees by the General Manager, Rajmahal area, Eastern Coal Field Limited under the scheme framed by the said authority providing appointment to the dependents of the land losers. A condition was imposed under Clause (7) that in the event of any finding that the land was a disputed land, till settlement of such dispute the appointment would remain suspended. In pursuance of the appointment letter dated 18th March, 1981 and on the condition as stipulated thereto, the petitioners were appointed. Subsequently their services were regularised as Category-I Mazdoor with effect from 1st October, 1981 on completion of the training. The petitioners got further promotion in respective promotional posts namely Doser Operator (T), Excavation Grade (E), Shovel Operator (T), Excavation Grade (E), Clerk Grade-III and Excavator Operator Grade (D) as applicable in respect of the respective petitioners following their promotional channel. This promotional order was issued by the three office orders amongst them, two office orders were issued on 18th August, 1982 and another order on 4th May, 1984. Further office order was issued on 23rd August, 1985 promoting some of the petitioners to higher promotional post. Some of the petitioners even promoted to the higher post by the different office orders namely, 23rd March, 1984 and 8th October, 1985. While the petitioners were working in their respective promotional posts, however, a office order dated 10th September, 1986 was issued by the Chief General Manager, Rajmahal area, terminating the services of the petitioners on the ground that as per report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, as communicated by his letter No. 1018 Rev. dated 28th August, 1986, it was opined that Hukumnama granted by ex-landlord in favour of Shri Badri Prasad Tebriwal, had no legal value and the land belongs to the Government. In the supplementary affidavit the petitioners have annexed a report dated 9th June, 1990 submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer, Rajmahal area, which reveals that the report of S.D.O. was wrong as the Hukumnama as granted by the ex-landlord got its 100 per cent legal value, which was termed by S.D.O. as a little legal value. It was further opined by the Land Acquisition Officer that the executive order of the S.D.O. was not served upon giving opportunity to the petitioners to challenged the same in a civil suit, praying for necessary declaration of right, title and interest on the basis of the Hukumnama granted by the ex-landlord. From the report of the Land Acquisition Officer further reveals that the concerned land was handed over to the Eastern Coal Field Limited by Shri Tebriwal, Senior Law Officer of the Organisation, on perusal of the records cleared the file for employment of the petitioners as nominees of said Tebriwal. It has been further held in the report that Land Acquisition Proceeding relating to the said land was initiated on holding the same as raiyati land and when the Eastern Coal Field Limited upon having the occupancy of the land constructed their structure, the same was not resisted by the Government claiming the same as Government land. With that report the said Land Acquisition Officer of Eastern Coal Field Limited opined that the termination order was bad and the matter was referred to the Director (Personnel), Eastern Coal Field Limited Headquarters for final order. The contentions as made in the supplementary affidavit and the report of Land Acquisition Officer of Eastern Coal Field Limited has not been challenged by the respondents, Eastern Coal Field Limited and/or the Coal India Limited by filing an affidavit. The learned Advocate for the respondent failed to produce the report of Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, which was relied upon to issue the impugned order of termination. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that having regard to the facts and situation of this case, the petitioners has suffered a civil consequence by the order of termination and the same was done on violation of the principle of natural justice. It has been argued further that without any proceeding the petitioners' services could not be terminated. In support of the case reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate of the petitioners to the several judgments namely the case D.G. Police v. Mritunjoy Sarkar, 1997 CLT (2) SC 90, Basndeb Tripathi v. Sidhu Kanu University, 1998 (5) Scale 300. Sravan Kr. Jha v. State of Bihar, (1991) Suppl. (1) SCC 330. Relying upon those judments it is contended that the impugned order is liable tobe set aside and quashed.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the respondents submits that since the petitioners exercised fraud for getting employment by producing Hukumnama in respect of a Government land, a nominee of Shri Tebriwal, no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioners before termination of service. In support of such view, reliance has been placed to the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Minz v. State of Bihar and others, 1994 (68) FLR 1040, and the judgment passed in the case of U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sitalnandwani and others, AIR 1991 SC 909. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the only point for adjudication in this writ application is as to whether the impugned decision without serving the copy of the report of the S.D.O. as relied upon and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, there was scope to pass any order of termination of service of the petitioners. From the records it appears that one Shri Tebriwal nominated the petitioners for appointment under the scheme -appointment of dependents of land loser as trainees". The Eastern Coal Field Limited prior to issuance of appointment letters verified the papers and documents, as it appears from the report of Land Acquisition Officer annexed in the supplementary affidavit and thereby issued the appointment letters in favour of the petitioners as trainees. Under Clause (7) of such appointment letter dated 18th March, 1981 it was provided that in the event of any dispute the service would be suspended till settlement of such dispute. Clause (7) being a condition of appointment of the petitioners reads as follows: "If the land acquired is found a disputed land against which you are offered employment as a trainee, your appointment will immediately be suspended till the dispute is settled...";