VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEAR both the sides.
(2.) THIS writ has been filed for quashing the order of dismissals per Annexure -10 and order of appellate authority as contained in Annexure -13 with a further direction upon the respondents of reinstate the petitioner and to allow him to perform regular duties on the original post with full back wages and all consequential benefits. The following are points for determination in this case : (i) If the petitioner is a workman his writ can be maintainable without availing the alternative remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act. (ii) If in the charge -sheet served upon a proceedee, it is stated that he may be dismissed for the following charges and ultimately resulting into dismissal after conclusion of the proceedings then whether a precon -ceived mind to punish the proceedee can be inferred? (iii) Whether a plea of some episode taking place many years before when the proceedee appeared as a co - workman in another proceeding, had certain threat can the proceedee take such plea in the subsequent proceeding and demand from the Management to provide him security and also to record vediography of the whole proceedings and in case of denial he does not participate and subsequently the proceeding is decided ex parte whether it can be said that there was denial of principles of natural justice? (iv) Whether if two Enquiry Officers are appointed to enquire into three different charges arising out of first charge itself ' and then disciplinary authority passes a common order can it be held to be legal? (v) Whether by stating in the show cause that at the relevant time for which the petitioner was proceeded the person concerned who alleged the charges against him was himself drunk "UNPAR CHADA GAYEE THI" amounts to using abusive languages against the superior or co -worker and consequently whether on this score a fresh charge can be framed? (vi) Whether if the proceedee has inter -changed his duty at the relevant time when the first charge was framed the workman who had inter -changed charge against whom there was no proceeding then proceeding against the petitioner only amounts to discrimination? (vii) When the disciplinary authority while awarding the punishment finds that the service record of the petitioner has been clean whether in the counter affidavit in the writ proceeding can be said that the service record of the petitioner was not clean and therefore, the sentence awarded was adequate?
(3.) THE aforesaid questions arose out of the following facts. The petitioner admittedly was a workman and on the alleged date i.e. on 8.1.1998 he was posted at Bachra area in the district of Hazaribagh of the respondents -Colliery. The electric power suddenly failed then an information was sent to him, as he was incharge of generator set, to on the switch of generator set, but he did not switch on the generator set. Consequently the Executive Engineer himself went to him but he did not switch on generator set stating that with the present strength he could not switch on the generator set and therefore, he was given the following charges : "Charge -Sheet No. PO (B)/PO/Chr. Sht/11 -A/95/10810 -15 dated 20/ 21.1.1995. "On 8.1.1995 (Sunday at about 3.45 p.m. 11 KV. DVC, Ray -Bachra Feeder power was failed and due to this maintenance work of Mine No. 1 was stopped, Sri Bishwajaeet Prasad, Tele Optr., Bachra, was sent to you personally to ask you to give power from DG set for maintenance work but you refused to give power with present sanctioned manpower". ;