Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to treat the appointment as continuity in service by giving all service benefits to which he is entitled to; and further prayer has been made for quashing the order of dismissal as contained in letter dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure-4 to the amended writ petition) passed in terms of provisions of Clause 39 of the Companies Standing Orders; and for quashing of the order dated 20.04.2005 (Annexure-5 to the amended writ petition) whereby the departmental appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority & Chairman, SAIL; and for quashing of the letter dated 11.04.2008 whereby the representation dated 25.02.2008 filed by the petitioner has been rejected; and for quashing of the modification order dated 29.07.2008 and the petitioner has further prayed for grant of all consequential reliefs.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 09.10.1971 on the post of 'Khalasi' in Water Supply Department. Subsequently he was promoted on the post of Senior Technician-cumOperative in Bokaro Steel Plant under SAIL. While continuing as such a Complaint Case No.386 of 1998 (Tr. Case No.918 of 2004) was instituted against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 386 and 379 of the I.P.C. Upon trial, the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 18.10.2004 under Section 386 IPC and was sentenced one year simple imprisonment and was also convicted and sentenced under Section 379 IPC for 1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default in payment of said fine, a further S.I of two months and both the sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.10.2004, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 and his conviction under Section 386 I.P.C was set aside, however, the conviction under Section 379 IPC was upheld by the appellate court vide judgment dated 30.11.2005. However, the petitioner was directed to be released after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon execution of Probation Bond of his good conduct for a period of two years. Thereafter the petitioner being aggrieved by the Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 preferred Criminal Revision No.1180 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2007 whereunder the petitioner was allowed the benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, whereunder the disqualification attached to conviction for an offence was removed by the High Court of Jharkhand. Due to conviction vide judgment dated 18.10.2004 in Complaint Case No.386 of 1998 (Tr. Case No.918 of 2004) the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 10.01.2005. Thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the authority which was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2005 by the appellate authority and Chairman, SAIL. After the order passed in the criminal case the petitioner appeared before the respondents, requesting for appointment with continuity in services. However, quite surprisingly the petitioner received a letter dated 05.02.2008 with regard to re-appointment order in the post of Senior Technician-cum-Operative in Bokaro Steel Plant in the basic pay scale in S9 Grade. In pursuance to the said appointment order the petitioner submitted his joining. Being aggrieved by the re-appointment order, the petitioner submitted representation before the concerned authority vide Annexure-8 to the writ application, which has been rejected on 11.04.2008 vide Annexure-9 to the writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008 and vide notification dated 29.07.2008, the period between 11.01.2005 to 07.02.2008 has been treated as break in service and it has been held that the petitioner is entitled for gratuity for 8 months, 24 days only and his earlier service period of 33 years, 03 months and 01 days has not been included for calculation of said gratuity as evident from Annexures-10 and 11 of the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the modification order dated 29.07.2008 (vide Annexure-11 to the amended writ application) has not been implemented in letter and spirit. Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the re-appointment order, the petitioner has been deprived of past services rendered by him, which smacks of mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has also referred to order dated 30.11.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 whereby the petitioner has been released on Probation for a period of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the order dated 22.11.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.1180 of 2005 wherein this Court has been pleased to hold that the finding of the appellate court will in no way attach any disqualification to the future of the petitioner under Section 12 of the provisions of the Offenders Act.;