Jharkhand High Court Quashes Removal of BCCL Employee Over Impersonation Charges: Orders 50% Back Wages and Consequential Benefits

Impersonation Allegation Cannot Be Sustained Without Proper Enquiry, Jharkhand High Court quashed the removal of a Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) employee accused of impersonation and held that the company’s failure to conduct a proper departmental enquiry rendered the removal illegal. The court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner’s service for the purposes of benefits and granted 50% back wages from the date of the reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (September 19, 2001) until the petitioner’s superannuation (January 10, 2009).

"Power Under Clause 28 Cannot Be Misused to Avoid Regular Enquiry"

The court found that the petitioner, who had worked for nearly 30 years with an unblemished record, was removed from service on March 18, 2000, based on allegations of impersonation under Clause 28 of BCCL’s Certified Standing Orders. This provision permits removal without a formal enquiry in specific cases, such as criminal convictions or security-related concerns.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, however, ruled: "The management cannot invoke Clause 28 to bypass Clause 27’s requirement for a regular departmental enquiry when serious charges like impersonation are leveled. The petitioner was removed without being held guilty in any criminal proceeding, departmental enquiry, or even the management’s own enquiry report."

The inquiry officer’s report had found contradictions in the evidence and recommended police verification. The police report later formed the sole basis for the removal order.

Tribunal Failed in Its Duty Under Section 11-A of the ID Act

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal had upheld the petitioner’s removal in 2012, finding it “legal and proper.” Criticizing this decision, the High Court stated:
"The Tribunal abdicated its duty under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which empowers it to reexamine the evidence and assess whether the punishment was justified. By failing to scrutinize the materials and relying solely on the police verification report, the Tribunal’s decision became perverse."

"Enquiry Report Failed to Prove Guilt; No Procedural Fairness in Police Report Reliance"

The inquiry report itself did not conclude that the petitioner was guilty of impersonation, noting instead that there were contradictory statements and insufficient evidence. It recommended police verification to resolve the issue. The High Court noted:
"An enquiry report that does not establish guilt cannot justify removal. The subsequent reliance on a police verification report obtained without notice or an opportunity to the petitioner violates principles of natural justice."

The court emphasized that the complainant, who claimed the petitioner was impersonating someone else, never testified during the enquiry or police investigation. Moreover, the police report was never subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner.

The court noted several inconsistencies in the evidence and procedural lapses:

Service Records: The petitioner’s service excerpts and identity card, issued by BCCL, did not mention her husband’s name, which was central to the impersonation allegation.
Form-B Register: The management relied on a Form-B register entry naming "Rohini Deshwalin, wife of Kali Deshwali," but this document was unsigned and was not relied upon even by the enquiry officer.
Enquiry Officer’s Doubts: The enquiry officer explicitly stated that the thumb impressions of the petitioner did not match the earlier records, but refrained from drawing any final conclusion, recommending external verification instead.
The court observed: "It cannot be said that the petitioner admitted to impersonation merely because she denied being the wife of Kali Deshwalin. Her consistent claim was that she was Rohini Deshwalin, first married to Parna Deshwalin and later to Nunu Sah."

Considering that the petitioner had already superannuated in January 2009 and had not demonstrated that she was unemployed during the litigation, the court granted her partial back wages. It held: "Considering the petitioner’s long service, unblemished record, and procedural violations by the management, 50% back wages from the reference date to the date of superannuation are appropriate."

The court also directed BCCL to provide all consequential benefits for the period in question.

•    Award and Removal Quashed: The Industrial Tribunal’s 2012 award and the removal order dated March 18, 2000, were set aside.
•    Back Wages: The petitioner was granted 50% back wages for the period from September 19, 2001 (date of reference to the Tribunal) to January 10, 2009 (date of superannuation).
•    Consequential Benefits: The petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits during the same period.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2025