- (1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO.5759 of 2003 whereby the order dated 12th November, 2003 was quashed and the entire departmental proceeding against the respondent/petitioner was also quashed and the appellants/respondents were directed to reinstate the respondent/petitioner in service with all consequential benefits as well as to pay 50% of back wages.
(2.) The fact of the case is that the respondent/petitioner was appointed on temporary basis by the appellants/respondents on 01.12.1965 at Bhurkunda Colliery and he was regularised as permanent worker on 01.10.1974 and he was granted first time bound promotion from General Mazdoor to Miscellaneous Mazdoor Category-II on 22.07.1986 and the second time bound promotion on 20.06.1991 from Miscellaneous Mazdoor Category-II to E.P. Helper. That the petitioner was served a memo from the Vigilance Officer alleging that he had worked at Bhurkunda Colliery by impersonating a person by the name of Antu, S/o Rijhu Mahto, resident of Gola, Hazaribagh. In the internal enquiry he was asked to produce the relevant documents which he complied and also raised an objection that for more than 25 years he had worked and the appellants/respondents never made any written or oral complaint since the last 25 years. It was because of his activities in the union affairs that the respondent/petitioner has been anguished. It is stated that the Vigilance Office submitted a report dated 04.08.1990 giving the finding that the respondent/petitioner i.e. Shri Antu alias Vijay Prasad Singh, S/o Late Jamuna Singh is the genuine person working at Bhurkunda Colliery and exonerated him of the charges. That the appellants/respondents kept mum till 1996 whereafter the petitioner/respondent was put under suspension by office order dated 09.05.1996 by respondent no.3 i.e. Project Officer, Bhurkunda Colliery asking him to show cause the charges alleging that Shri Antu, S/o Sri Rijhu Mahto was working as casual worker since 1966 who was regularised as permanent worker on 01.10.1974. That in April, 1975, Shri Antu fell ill and went to his native place for treatment and in his place the petitioner started working from 01.12.1975 by impersonating him. It was also stated that the petitioner/respondent's real name is Shri Vijay Singh, S/o Shri Jamuna Singh of village- Dharhara, District- Munger. Accordingly the act of the petitioner constitutes misconduct under Clause 17 of the Standing Order. That the petitioner/respondent filed a reply to the show cause cum charge-sheet and by order dated 17.06.1996 it was informed that Shri S.Mullick, Senior Personnel Officer shall conduct the enquiry. The petitioner/respondent participated in the departmental enquiry whereafter the Enquiry Officer, by letter dated 26.09.1996, submitted the report finding the petitioner/ respondent innocent stating that there is no circumstantial evidence nor documentary proof to show that the petitioner had impersonated Shri Antu, S/o Rijhu Mahto. Accordingly, the charges were found not to be proved. That the respondent no.3 was dissatisfied by the said enquiry and again by letter dated 01.07.1997 ordered further enquiry for the same sort of charges on the ground that relevant facts were not brought out in the enquiry report. Accordingly, a fresh enquiry by one Shri J. Mishra was conducted and the petitioner/respondent co-operated in the fresh enquiry whereafter the Enquiry Officer exonerated him finding that the charges could not be established. That the appellants/respondents remained silent for two years and to harass the petitioner, again by office order dated 31.08.2002 issued show cause notice to him on the ground that he was not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Vigilance report, without assigning any valid reason for disagreeing with the second enquiry report. The disciplinary authority in the show-cause stated that some security personnel was sent to his native place and has given adverse finding and the petitioner was asked to reply on the same. The petitioner submitted his reply requesting to drop the proceeding as nothing adverse has been found against him and the security personnel has collected the material behind his back and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. It is stated that no information was given to the petitioner, neither the report of the Security Officer was given to the respondent/petitioner which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. That the petitioner, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the callous approach of the appellants/respondents, filed W.P.(S) NO.5808 of 2002 which was disposed of by order dated 04.09.2003 with observation that the suspension shall be revoked after lapse of two months from the date of receipt of the order but the appellants/respondents did not pass any order with an ulterior motive. It is stated that the appellants/respondents failed to establish the charges and the procedure adopted by them is unknown to service jurisprudence and the petitioner/respondent filed the writ application stating that he had no other efficacious, speedy and alternative remedy than to invoke the writ jurisdiction and prayed for the quashing of the entire proceedings.
(3.) After hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed in the aforesaid writ application.;