Vigilance Compedium - CCL

Case Study -09
A complaint was received in Vigilance Department CCL that one of the employees of a
Colliery of CCL fraudulently got appointment in place of an ex-employee of CCL by
projecting himself as son of the said ex-employee though actually he was son-in-law of the
said employee.
It was revealed that the said employee and his wife both were employees of the said colliery.
They had a son whose name was recorded in the S/Sheets of both the employees.
One Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 2 nd Jan 1978 was in vogue in the year 1978 and
1979. As per the said scheme the conditions of eligibility for Voluntary Retirement was as
under:
They should have a son, if there is no son, a son-in-law or if there is no sonin-law,
son of real brother who has completed his 18 th year and is not more
than 25 years of age.
The said employee with a view to reap the advantage of the said VR scheme opted for VRS
in the year 1978 and one person was offered employment on the pretext that he was son of
the said employee.
One year later , in the year 1979, wife of the said employee who retired under VRS in 1978
also opted to retire under the said VR scheme and one more employment was offered to
another person having the same name as that of the person employed earlier in 1978 in place
of the wife of the said employee.
Thus two persons having the same person as their Father came into employment. Their
permanent address was also identical. One was appointed under the VR Scheme in place of
the Male employee in the year 1978 and another appointed under the same VR Scheme in the
year 1979 in place of the female employee (wife of the employee retired in the year
1978).Both these dependants were subsequently posted in two different Areas of CCL.
On investigation it was established that the person employed in place of the Male employee/
husband was actually Son-in law of the said employee. He projected himself as son of the
said employee and succeeded in getting employment. As the said employee already had a son
therefore Son-in law was not entitled for employment under the said scheme but fraudulently
projecting himself as the actual son of the said employee he managed to get employment.
Said dependant was served with charge sheet and in the regular enquiry also charges of
fraudulent appointment were conclusively proved and consequently he has been terminated.