TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.M. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) IN the instant case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.6.1995 which is contained in Annexure 14 at page 108 by which the Chairman, Board of Trustee refused to interfere with the decision of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner and accordingly rejected the appeal thereby conforming the order of compulsory retirement passed on 4/11.8.1993 as contained in Annexure 12. Consequently, the petitioner has also made a prayer for quashing the aforementioned order of compulsory retirement and has further made a prayer that appropriate orders be passed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including back -wages etc. The facts which are necessary to be looked into for purposes of adjudicating this writ application are that in the year 1966, the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner at Dhanbad whereafter he was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk and posted as such in August 1975. The petitioner has stated that one S.A. Moiz (respondent No. 5) who, at the relevant time, was not appointed as Commissioner of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and who was merely holding a current duty charge and who was neither the appointing authority of the petitioner nor was conferred with the powers of the disciplinary authority, issued a charge -sheet against the petitioner on 20.8.1991 vide Annexure 2. According to the petitioner, he was himself an active member of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Karamchari Sangh and had been raising his voice against actions taken by the respondent No. 5.
(3.) THE petitioner has alleged mala fides against S.A. Moiz (respondent No. 5) and upon perusal of the note sheets of this case put up by the office, it appears that notices on respondent No. 5 were returned due to his refusal and therefore notices were accepted to be validly served on him on account of such refusal.;