Nansai Vs South Eastern Coal Ltd.

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:38539

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1371 of 2023

¶7

1 - Nansai S/o Late Devsharan @ Jawahir Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Choura, Police Station And Tahsil Rajpur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - South Eastern Coal Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum-Managing Director Sipat Road S.E.C.L. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Sub Area Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited Sub Area Bhatgaon, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Mines Superintendent South Eastern Coalfield Limited Mahamaya Mines Bhatgaon Area, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

	2
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

04/08/2025

¶19

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugried order dated 29.5.2011 ANNEXURE P/3 issued by the respondent no.2 reinstate the petitioner on the post of General Labor Category -1 with all consequential benefit.

¶21

10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

Brief facts of the case, is that, the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the respondent authorities, and pursuant to such acquisition, respondent No. 2 appointed the petitioner to the post of General Labour under the applicable guidelines and rehabilitation policy. In compliance with the said appointment order, the petitioner joined the posting and submitted all required documents before the respondent authorities. However, a complaint was subsequently filed before the Deputy Collector,

¶23

3

¶24

Ambikapur, who conducted a preliminary inquiry and submitted a report to the respondent authorities. Based on this inquiry report, a criminal case was registered by Police Station Rajpur as Crime No. 120/2011 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In the ensuing criminal trial, all the accused persons, including the petitioner, were acquitted. Following the acquittal, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 19.11.2018 along with the judgment to respondent No. 2 requesting reinstatement to the said post, but no action has been taken by the authorities. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 removed the petitioner from service without issuing any notice or conducting a departmental enquiry, which amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case as no offence was established and the Deputy Collector, who was examined during the trial, did not support the allegations nor produced any documents. Therefore, removing the petitioner from service on the same set of allegations, without any departmental enquiry, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Hence, this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in the capacity of General Labor Category-1 in South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL). However, without initiating

¶26

4

¶27

any departmental enquiry and without even issuing a show cause notice, the petitioner has been arbitrarily removed from service. It is further submitted that the removal order dated 29.05.2011 alleges that the petitioner secured the appointment by impersonating himself as a family member of one Jawahir, whereas, in fact, he is the son of Mahavir. Learned counsel contends that even assuming such an allegation, the respondent authorities were legally bound to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, wherein specific charges ought to have been framed and the petitioner should have been afforded full opportunity to respond and defend himself against such allegations. However, no such procedure was followed, thereby vitiating the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 3302/2011 , decided on 28.10.2020.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present case is one wherein the petitioner has secured appointment by practicing fraud upon the authorities. It is contended that the petitioner falsely projected himself to be a family member of one Mahavir, whose land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of SECL, and thereby managed to obtain employment under the rehabilitation policy. However, upon subsequent verification, it came to light that the petitioner is

¶29

5

¶30

neither the son nor any legal heir or dependent of the said Mahavir. He further submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the State Government, during the course of which it was categorically found that the petitioner had procured employment by relying upon forged and fabricated documents. In view of the findings of the enquiry, the petitioner's service was terminated. It is further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay against the removal order dated 29.05.2011, and therefore, on the ground of delay and laches as well, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

This Court has considered the nature of dispute in WPS No. 3302/2011 in which it has been held as under:-

¶33

“As a consequence, the petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement in service. However, applying the principles of “No Work No Pay” and also taking the long duration of time that has lapsed from the date of termination till now, the petitioner would not be entitled for any wages. However, he would be entitled for all other benefits of continuity of service. This Court having quashed the impugned order only on the ground of not conducting an

¶34

6

¶35

inquiry, the right of the respondents stands reserved for conducting an inquiry and on being satisfied that the petitioner has fraudulently obtained employment, the respondents-Management would be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with the Service Rules or the standing order as the case may be governing the field.”

¶36

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case in their entirety, and also taking into account the order passed in WPS No. 3302/2011, this Court finds that the impugned order of removal is unsustainable as without issuing any notice and without holding any enquiry order regarding removal from service has passed, that too without affording any opportunity of hearing which is illegal and is accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear that the delay in filing the present petition, as well as the period during which the petitioner did not render any service, shall be duly taken into account while reinstating the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any monetary or service-related benefits for the said period.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶38

Furthermore, it is made clear that the concerned respondent authorities shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings, if

¶39

7

¶40

so advised, in accordance with law and the applicable Service Rules, for taking action against the petitioner, including his removal from service, after following due process.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶43

Raghu Jat

Nansai v. South Eastern Coal Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

Nansai v. South Eastern Coal Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shobhana Walde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lochan Prasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raju Singh Vs United India Insurance Company Limited

Manish Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Laxmin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh