D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred by an employee of the respondent -Central Coalfields Ltd., who was working as Class IV employee from 18 December, 1973 and who has retired on 22nd March, 2002, after putting the services of 29 long years. Never any objection was raised by the respondents about this Class IV employee about his nature of work or for any reason, whatsoever. Thus, the petitioner has worked sincerely, diligently, honestly and to the satisfaction of the respondents, without any stigma attached to his service career. After his retirement, a so called complaint has been received from some complainant, who has never been examined by the Inquiring Officer, and after retirement of the petitioner -employee, a report has been submitted by the Inquiring Officer on 10 July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) that the petitioner was really never appointed as Class IV employee and there is impersonation by the petitioner in the year, 1973 and thereafter. Thus, all the retirement benefits have been withheld by the respondents, only on this ground and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has always remained obedient Class IV employee and he has worked to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any show cause notice has been issued nor any objection has been raised about the petitioner nor for his working style. Moreover, in all service records, the name and photograph of the petitioner have been attached in several documents, which are in the custody of the respondents, like: (a) Service Register; (b) Identity Card; (c) Gratuity Nomination Form -F (d) Coal Mines Provident Fund Nomination Form -A Thus, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that these are the documents, which are in custody and knowledge and possession of the respondent -Management. Some documents have been further forwarded to the Provident Fund or Pension authorities. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that still there are documents with the respondents of the petitioner, who has worked for 29 long years, but, they are without photographs, like; Leave Report, Sick Report etc. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no question of any impersonation, whatsoever. The petitioner is the son of Karu Mahto and even his father was also serving in Kedla Mines (before nationalization). Time and again the petitioner has stated that he has never visited his birth place and the petitioner had to remain with his father at difference places and, therefore, matching of the retirement time photograph or a photograph in the service records, in a particular village before some villagers is not a correct evidence that the petitioner is not Rambali Mahto son of Karu Mahto. There was enough time with the respondents, right from 1973 to 2002 to verify all the facts, which are stated in the service records, but, never any objection has been raised by anyone, much less by the respondent -Management and after his peaceful retirement, on a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint, unnecessarily the petitioner's retirement benefits have been withheld.
(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that firstly the complainant has never been examined by the Inquiring Officer and secondly, two co -employees, namely, Govind Munda and Shankar Par, have already stated that the petitioner has worked as a Class IV employee from 1978 onwards with the respondents and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Inquiring Officer and the Inquiring Officer has only relied upon the statements, made by some persons of Village -Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village -Soso and that too, upon showing a photograph of the petitioner. Petitioner is not knowing which photograph was shown to whom, upon whose statements, much reliance has been placed by the Inquiring. Officer nor the petitioner was kept present at the said two villages. Even an opportunity of cross -examining the said person/persons of Village -Khajawati (Bodhgaya) and of Village - Soso was never given to the petitioner. Thus, what question was asked to whom and that too by showing what photograph has not been brought at the touchstone of the cross -examination. Thus, the evidence upon which inquiry report is based, is no evidence at all, whereas, as stated hereinabove, two co -employees have given depositions in favour of the petitioner and in absence of examination of the complainant, the report of the Inquiring Officer, which is dated 10 July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition) is based upon no evidence and is non -est, which has been concluded much after the retirement of the petitioner i.e. after March, 2002 onwards. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is never willing to go within the campus of the respondents, as he has already retired and after retirement, no question of further misuse of any fund, whatsoever, arises and, in fact, the petitioner has worked sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents for 29 long years and, therefore, by quashing and setting aside the order of the Inquiring Officer/Committee dated 10 July, 2007 (Annexure 8 to the memo of petition), let the respondents be directed to make payment of the legally payable retirement benefits under different headings, like; Provident Fund, Pension, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, and such other legally payable benefits.;