Judgment:
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI WP(S)No.3210of2011 MuneshwariBhuini ... Petitioner Versus BCCLandors. ... ... Respondents CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICEAPARESHKUMARSINGH ForthePetitioner :M/sRajendraKrishna&AmitSinha FortheRespondents :Mr.A.K.Mehta 521.8.2013 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. Forthechargeissuedon9thDecember,2009,Annexure4,bythe respondentno.3,ProjectOfficer,MudidihColliery,BCCL,SijuaArea, Dhanbad,thepetitionerwasproceededagainstandorderofdismissal from service, dated 5th April,2010, Annexure 10, was issued by the sameauthority. Theallegationagainstthepetitionerwasthatshehadavailed the LLTC/LTC in respect of her son, Sukhdeo Kumar though that personwasemployedatEastKatrasCollieryunderKatrasareaandwas working as Electrical Helper, who resigned from the services of the companyunderVRS(BPE)witheffectfrom15.02.1995.Thepetitioner's contentionisthathersonwasnot employedinthesaidcollieryand thechargeisunfounded. On this score, when the writ petition was heard on the last occasion, by order dated 31.07.2013, the respondents were allowed time to bring on record the documents relating to employment of SukhdeoKumari.e.thesonofthepresentpetitionerworkinginthe EastKatrascolliery.However,nosuchdocumenthasbeenbroughton record. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it appears that the entireissuehingesupondeterminationonthequestionoffact,which seems to have been not properly enquired into during course of inquiryproceeding.Thedismissalorderdated5thApril,2010isitselfa cryptic order, without discussion of the alleged charges against the petitioner,thecontentsoftheinquiryreport,herreplytothesecond 2. showcauseandtheDisciplinaryAuthorityhasstraightwayconcluded theguiltofthepetitioneranddismissedherfromservices.Theorderof dismissal, therefore, suffers from nonapplication of mind and also absenceofreasons. ThepetitionerhasalsoobtainedaninformationunderRTI,vide letterdated8thJanuary,2013,Annexure14issuedbytheChiefManager (Mining).Aspersaidinformation,accordingtothepetitioner,herson SukhdeoKumarwasneverfoundtobeemployedunderEastKatras CollierybytheManagementofBCCLandwasnotinserviceduringthe years199194towhichperiodthechargerelatesagainstthepetitioner. Thesematerials,therefore,pointoutthattheimpugnedaction taken on behalf of the respondents has been done without proper application of mind and the impugned order, as already observed hereinabove,itselfsuffersfromabsenceofreasonsandisacrypticas well. Insuchcircumstances,theimpugnedorderofdismissaldated 5thApril,2010doesnotappeartobesustainableinlawaswellason facts,whichis,accordingly,quashed. Thematterisremandedtothe Competent Authority/Disciplinary Authority once again to take a decisioninaccordancewithlawafterdueinquiryreportinrespectof the alleged charges against the petitioner within a reasonable time, preferablywithin10weeksfromthedateofreceipt/productionofa copyofthisorder. DependantupontheorderpassedbytheDisciplinaryAuthority onremand,theconsequentialbenefitsshallflowtothepetitionerin accordancewithlaw. Thiswritpetitionstandsdisposedofintheaforesaidterms. (ApareshKumarSingh,J.) Pandey