Munendra Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Awadhesh Ram, presently residing at C/o v. 1. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization having its office at Dhanbad, Opposite Police

Legal Reasoning

--- : Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Adv. : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Adv. --- 10/13.07.2023 2. Learned counsels for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ Rule / Direction particularly in the nature of Certiorari to quash and set aside the memorandum dated 22.10.2018 containing the Article of Charge (Annexure – 5), the summons contained in office order dated 19.2.2019 issued to the petitioner (Annexure – 7) and the Inquiry Report contained in memorandum dated 3.3.2020 (Annexure – 10) in respect to the petitioner whereby the charge of impersonation of the present petitioner in the on line written examination for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) has been established on basis of Rule 14 and 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which is not at all applicable in the present case; (ii) Thereafter to quash / set aside the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner as same being completely illegal, arbitrary, against the provision of law in view of the fact that Rule 14 and 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 is not applicable in the case of this petitioner and the same cannot be applied in the case of these petitioners. (iii) For a further direction upon the respondent to restrain themselves from taking any coercive action as against the present petitioners. And / or (iv) Any other relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper for which the petitioners are very much entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” Arguments of the Petitioner 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the short

Decision

point on which the present writ petition can be disposed of is as to whether the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1965) would at all be applicable on the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that the issue was decided by this Court in W.P.(S). No.1558 of 2011 (Devashish Das Vs. Union of India and Ors.) wherein, it has been held the proceeding under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the employees of CMPF, rather they are guided by the provision of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1964). 4. The learned counsel submits that the proceeding in the present case has been initiated by referring to the provision of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and therefore, very initiation of the proceeding is vitiated in the eyes of law. He has also submitted that the issue has ultimately been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in judgment passed in L.P.A No.221 of 2020 (The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization and Ors. Vs. Chandan Kumar and Ors.) decided on

01.05.2023, a copy of the judgment has been placed on record. 5. The learned counsel for the appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that so far as the legal issue is concerned, there is no dispute that the petitioner are to be governed by the provisions of CMPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964 and not by Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, but the matter relates to impersonation and in terms of the order passed in similar cases, the right be reserved to proceed in accordance with Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964, if at all required. He has referred to such liberty granted in the case being W.P.(S). No. 1558 of 2011 (Devashish Das versus Union of India). Arguments of the Respondents 3

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the proceeding has been initiated under the Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964, but the same has been done in conjunction with Rules 14 and 18 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1965. He has also submitted that therefore, the case of the petitioner is different. 7. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.221 of 2020 and has submitted that similar argument has been rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench and therefore the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of LPA No.221 of 2020. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that in case, this Court interferes with the impugned summons, the right of the respondents be reserved to take action under the Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964 in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.678 of 2019 (Chandan Kumar and Ors. Vs. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization and Ors.) decided on 21.01.2020 which has followed the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Devashish Das Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra). Findings of this Court 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the summons have been issued to the petitioner by referring to Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964 in conjunction with the rules of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The subject of the summons is quoted as under: “Sub: - Departmental Inquiry under Sub Regulation 3 (1) under Schedule III of Regulation 33 of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff & Condition of Service) Regulations, 1964 in conjunction with Rule 14 and 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against Shri Munendra Kumar Social Security Assistant (SSA), Regional Office, CMPFO, Region – II, Dhanbad.” 4

10. It is not in dispute that in W.P.(S) No.1558 of 2011 (supra), it has been held that the proceeding under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not applicable to the employees of CMPF, rather they are guided by the provisions of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964. The issue was again considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.221 of 2020 (supra) and an argument was advanced on behalf of CMPF that the proceeding was not initiated under the provision of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, but the proceeding was initiated under the provision of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964 in conjunction with Rules 14 and 18 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. However, the said argument was rejected by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The paragraphs which are relevant for the purposes of the present case are para 27 to 31 which are quoted as under: “27. This Court has considered the order passed by the Coordinate learned Single Judge which is available on record and found therefrom that the Regulation 1964 has been discussed at length and taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, although, therein the proceeding was initiated under the provision of Rule 14 of the Rule 1965, therefore, has come to conclusion that when the complete code by way of Regulation, 1964 is already available why to initiate a departmental proceeding under Rule 14 of the Rule, 1965 and accordingly the entire proceeding along with the decision has been quashed and set aside.

28. Here in the given facts of the case although the departmental proceeding has not been initiated under the provisions of Rule, 1965 but the proceeding has been initiated under the provision of Regulation, 1964 in conjunction with Rule 14 and 18 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965 and therefore on this ground the learned Counsel for the appellant is making distinction about non-applicability of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1558 of 2011 and on this ground also the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been sought to be quashed.

29. But we are not in agreement to such submission, reason being, that the Co-ordinate learned Single Judge while deciding the issue in W.P. No. 1558 of 2011 has considered the very applicability of the Regulation, 1964 considering it to be a complete code to deal with the one or other employees working under the establishment basis upon which the conclusion has been arrived at that when there is complete code by way of Regulation, 1964 then why to initiate a departmental proceeding under the provision of Rule, 1965.

30. Here also in the given facts of the case, the summon has been questioned that why the proceeding will be set at motion along with 5 the provision of Regulation, 1964 and the Regulation 14 and 18 of Regulation, 1965. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to give justification that the same can well be applied in view of the provision of Rule 4 but we have already discussed here-in-above the implication of Rule 4 of Regulation, 1964. The learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate that the compliance which is required to be made in view of the provision of Rule 4 of the Regulation, 1964 is available.

31. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made here-inabove and taking into consideration the aforesaid fact is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference.”

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in L.P.A No.221 of 2020 decided on 01.05.2023 and accordingly, the impugned summons as contained in Annexure – 5 and 7 are hereby set aside on the aforesaid point. 12. However, the right is reserved with the respondents to proceed in accordance with Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964, if at all required.

13. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Saurav/ (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)