MONORANJAN MALLICK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is at present working as Additional Chief Mining Engineer Central Coal Fields Ltd. , Ranchi has moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being aggrieved by the Memorandum of charge-sheet Annexure 'g' to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner alleges that both the two charges are devoid of substance, that as regards the first charge it cannot be levelled against him as he was not working as the Area Manager in Area No. V at the time of the issuance of the two work orders and the petitioner had no responsibility and/or connection with the issuance, of the said two work orders and that the first charge has been issued mechanically and without application of mind. It is also contended that the Second charge has also no substance and for that purpose the judgment of the Patna High Court quashing the criminal proceeding initiated against the contractors, by the order dated 31st July, 1987 has been referred to. ( 3 ) THE petitioner therefore submits that the Memorandum of Charge sheet has been issued by the Respondents with malafide motive only for the purpose of withholding the promotion which has become due to the petitioner from Grade E-8 to E-9 for which he has already been cleared by the Departmental promotion Committee. It is also submitted that the charge does not disclose even prima facie any commission of misconduct by the petitioner and the charge-sheet and the articles of charges cannot be sustained in the eye of law. ( 4 ) THE Respondent no. 3 alone contested the writ petition. ( 5 ) IT is submitted that cause of action did not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court as the charge sheet annexure 'g', to the writ petition was issued from Kylanagar, Dhanbad by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , the Respondent no. 3, that when the charge-sheet has been issued the Coal India Ltd. has nothing to do with the charge sheet and if it is found that charges have been proved against the petitioner and if any major penalty like compulsory retirement or dismissal of service is to be inflicted that has to be done by the Coal India Ltd. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and that this Court has therefore, no jurisdiction. ( 6 ) AS regards the merit of the case, the Respondent no. 3 states as follows : -the Superintendent, of Police, C. B. I, C. I. U-11, New Delhi, had registered an FIR vide Crime No. 1/84-CIU-IU on 25th May 1984 against M/s. Nefco, and M/s. Aman Minerals of Dhanbad and several others, for the alleged irregularities being resorted to in transportation of sand from riverbed/bajra ghat to the Colliery site in Area VI with active connivance Of the officers/officials of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and the Central Industrial Security Force showing fictitious trips in their bills, thereby causing huge losses and corresponding gains to themselves. The, investigation was done by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. , submitted a report whereby regular departmental action for major penalty was recommended against Sri O. P. Manchanda who was the General Manager and posted before Sri A. P. Malik of VI Area, Sri U. S. Singh, the then Area Manager (Technical), Sri B. R. Tripathi, the then Agent, Sri G. B. Ghurde, the then Agent and Sri A. P. Malik who was posted as General Manager, VI Area during the period September 1981 to May 1983 under Rule 4. 1 (1) and (II) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of the Coal India Ltd. Such recommendation was accepted by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. on 2nd November 1988 and duly approved. ( 7 ) THE writ petitioner was working as General Manager, Area VI, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. , Dhanbad, during the year/period September 1981 to May 1983. The Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, has invited tenders through, press for transportation of sand from river dumps and stocks to sand bunkers of various collieries of Area No. VI. The Tender Committee had accepted the tender of M/5. NEFCO for Bassuriya Colliery and tender of M/s. Aman Minerals, for Industry Colliery. M/s. NEFCO and M/s. Minerals were the sister concerns of Sri N. D. Singh. After finalisation of tender, Work. order No. KA/afm/wo/sand/80-81 6139 dated 18. 12. 1980 was issued in favour of M/5. NEFCO, Dhanbad for transportation of sand from Telmachu and Mohalbani ghats to Bassuriya Colliery @ 29. 95 and Rs. 28. 79 per cubic meter respectively. M/s. Aman Minerals was also awarded contract as per Work order No. KA/6140 dated 22. 2. After finalisation of tender, Work. order No. KA/afm/wo/sand/80-81 6139 dated 18. 12. 1980 was issued in favour of M/5. NEFCO, Dhanbad for transportation of sand from Telmachu and Mohalbani ghats to Bassuriya Colliery @ 29. 95 and Rs. 28. 79 per cubic meter respectively. M/s. Aman Minerals was also awarded contract as per Work order No. KA/6140 dated 22. 2. 80 for transportation of sand from Sudamdih, Mohalbani ghats and Goshala dump to Industry Colliery @ Rs. 23. 12 per cubic meter. These Ghats were linked to the nearer collieries of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Headquarter and the rates were fixed considering the distance of the Ghats from the nearer colliery. In the year 1981, there was no CISF Check-Post at the Ghats. ( 8 ) AFTER accepting the work order, the contractor transported some quantity of sand from Mohalbani ghat and thereafter Sri N. D. Singh, Partner of M/s. Aman Minerals wrote a letter dated 10. 2. 81 to the General Manager, Area VI that sands are at finishing stage at Mohalbani ghat and it contains lot of stones. Similarly another letter was also addressed from M/s. NEFCO, to General Manager, Area VI. It was suggested by the contractor that they may be allowed to transport sand from Bajraghat which was at a distance of 41 Kms. from the colliery. The agents of industry and Bassuriya Colliery also submitted their reports on 21. 1. 81 and 20. 2. 81 respectively to the General Manager, Area VI for alternative arrangements as the sand was not available at Mohalbanighat. On receipt of report a W/t message was sent on 23. 2. 81 by A. M. (T), Area VI addressed to Agents of Industry and Bassuriya Colliery to transport sand from Bajra- ghat. This matter was taken up by the General Manager, Area VI with C. M. E. (Production) for allowing transportation of sand from Bajraghat and a letter was addressed by Sri M. B. Ansari, Deputy G. M. E. (S and N) on 6/9. 3. 1981 addressed to the General Manager, Area VI pointing out that transportation of sand from Bajraghat should be restricted to a small Period and date be fixed for negotiation of rates. The General Manager marked this letter to ADM. 3. 1981 addressed to the General Manager, Area VI pointing out that transportation of sand from Bajraghat should be restricted to a small Period and date be fixed for negotiation of rates. The General Manager marked this letter to ADM. However, he did not ask the contractor to transport sand from Sudamdih and Telmachi ghats which were nearer to the colliery and were included in the original work order. ( 9 ) ON 12. 3. 1981 the General Manager constituted a Committee for negotiations of rates with contractor and got approved rate of Rs. 36. 75 per cubic meter for Industry Colliery and on 24. 3. 1981, a letter was addressed to M/s. Amen Minerals and NEFCO confirming award of contract for transportation of sand from Bajraghat to Bassuriya and Industry Colliery. Thereafter, regular work order was also issued on 17. 4. 1982 in favour of M/s. NEFCO and M/s. Aman Minerals vide No. KA/afm/wo/ Sand/80-81/460 and 459 with retrospective effect from March 1981. In this contract one of the important clauses was that contractor will remain in charge of the work till the time the work is in progress. ( 10 ) SRI A. P. Malik, the writ petitioner, allowed transportation of sand from Bajraghat although he had received letter dated 15. 10. 1981 and 27. 3. 1982 from Sri R. K. Yashroy, CME (P) that transportation of sand was made from nearer ghats and the same was booked as Bajraghat sand. The matter was inquired into and report was submitted on 13. 5. 1982 by the Committee that there was sufficient quantity of sand at Tasra and Kewra ghats. The said report was forwarded by him to Headquarter for fixing the rate and no action was taken on this report to stop transportation of sand from Bajraghat which continued upto May 1983. He also failed to keep in mind the financial implications in allowing sand transportation from Bajraghat so that cost of production remained less. No tender was invited for transportation of sand and he did not make any attempt to stop transportation or to check whether transportation was actually done from Bajraghat or from any other ghat due to which the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. made excess payment of Rs. 22,79,860/- by allowing the contractor to transport sand from Bajraghat to Bassuriya colliery and Rs. 22,79,860/- by allowing the contractor to transport sand from Bajraghat to Bassuriya colliery and Rs. 23,46,708/- excess payment was made to the contractor by allowing transportation of sand to Industry Colliery from Bajraghat. The aforesaid acts committed by the writ petitioner, showed that he prima facie failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and contravened Rule 4. 1 (1) and (11) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of Coal India Ltd. 1978. ( 11 ) THE contention of the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been issued with ulterior motive to delay and defeat the petitioner's promotional prospect have been refuted by the Respondent. The writ petitioner hag filed an affidavit-in-reply contesting all the above contentions of Respondent no. 3. ( 12 ) THE first point for decision is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. ( 13 ) THERE is no doubt that charge-sheet which is challenged in this writ petition was issued by the Managing Director of, Respondent no. 3 from the Head Office at Dhanbad which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. But the Respondent no. 3 has its office in Calcutta. Moreover, in the affidavit-in-opposition it is conceded that if this charge is proved and the question arises for imposing major penalty against the petitioner then it is the Managing Director of Coal India Ltd. who has to pass the said order. Therefore the issuance of the charge sheet has the consequential effect of the petitioner being exposed to the passing a major penalty by the Coal India Ltd. As the Coal India Ltd. has its headquarters in Calcutta and it is a necessary party of this writ petition, then in my view part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court and one of the Respondents has also its office within this jurisdiction of this Court. So, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. ( 14 ) MR. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Statement of Article of charges which is part of the chargesheet being annexure 'g' to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner has been charged for contravening Rule 4. 1 (1) and 4. So, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. ( 14 ) MR. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the Statement of Article of charges which is part of the chargesheet being annexure 'g' to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner has been charged for contravening Rule 4. 1 (1) and 4. 1 (11) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1978 of Coal India Ltd. that the above rules show that every employee of the company shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and maintain devotion of duty and that the contravention of the above rules does not amount to misconduct and consequently no departmental proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner for his failure to maintain absolute integrity or devotion to duty. He refers before me two decisions of the Supreme Court on this point. ( 15 ) THE first decision is AIR 1979 S. C. 1022 (Union of India vs. J. Ahmed) and the other decision is AIR 1984 S. C. 1361 (A. L. Kalra vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. ). ( 16 ) ON persuing the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 S. C. 1022 I find that in that case the Supreme Court has observed that lack of efficiency, failure to attend highest standard of administrative ability does riot constitute misconduct. The other decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1361 also observing that when an employee of a public sector corporation was charged for not refunding the advance taken for House Building within the time stipulated under the Rules for granting House Building advance and was also charged of not returning within the stipulated time, advance taken for purchasing Motor Cycle and was removed from service after enquiry on this finding that the violation of the Rules for granting Housing building advance amounted to not maintaining absolute integrity, then the order that he was found guilty of misconduct was not at all proper. The Supreme Court has observed that the Rules granting advance themselves provided the consequence of breach of condition and therefore there was no reason for initiating disciplinary enquiry as the breach of the Rules did not constitute misconduct. ( 17 ) MR. Banerjee, appearing for the Respondent no. The Supreme Court has observed that the Rules granting advance themselves provided the consequence of breach of condition and therefore there was no reason for initiating disciplinary enquiry as the breach of the Rules did not constitute misconduct. ( 17 ) MR. Banerjee, appearing for the Respondent no. 3 submits that above two, decisions of the Supreme Court have been rendered after the employee concerned has been dealt with departmentally on the conclusion of the departmental proceeding and the principles laid down in those decisions are not attracted to the facts of the present case. He also submits that the imputation of charges against the petitioner have all the ingredients of misconduct, because the impugned act of the petitioner resulted in loss of revenue of the concerned respondent as the contractors had been able to obtain excess payment of more than 46 lacs of rupees. He, therefore, submits that when the disciplinary enquiry has been initiated as the disciplinary authority was prima facie satisfied that such a proceeding should be initiated against him for gross misconduct, then at the threshold of such enquiry the writ court should not interfere to quash the charge-sheet. In support he refers to me a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 S. C. 1821 (Channan Singh vs. Co--operative Society, Punjab ). He points, out that in, that decision even where a disciplinary proceeding dropped against an employee was revived by issuing a fresh show cause notice against dismissal the Supreme Court has held that a writ petition challenging the revival of the proceeding is premature as no punitive action has yet been taken and there is no present grievance which can be ventilated in a court of law. He submits that the Statement of Article of charges and the Statement of Imputation of misconduct in support of the Articles of charge framed against the petitioner clearly shows that the disciplinary authority had sufficient justification to issue a charge-sheet, that even if it is true that when the work orders were issued the petitioner was not the General Manager, Area VI, B. C. C. L. Dhanbad but during the period when in terms, of those work orders the contractors were delivering the sand he was the General Manager during the period of September 1981 to May 1983 and that the disciplinary authority should he given opportunity to hold necessary enquiry to prove the charges and if the disciplinary authority fails to prove the charges then the petitioner would be honourably acquitted, but at the threshold of the enquiry, the writ court should not interfere as the statement of imputation of misconduct is very grave ; that not only the petitioner but also other senior officers are also involved and they have also been charge-sheeted and there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner, that this charge-sheet has been issued only to delay or defeat his next promotion. ( 18 ) ON considering the, submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 3 and on considering the annexure 'g' of the writ petition I am of the view that the disciplinary authority considers the impugned act of the petitioner to be act of misconduct. The petitioner has also been charged for being responsible of excess payment of more than 46 lacs of rupees to the contractors. The allegation made against him requires to be probed by proper departmental enquiry and it is not a fit case in which the writ court would interfere to quash the charge-sheet. It is so also a fact that before the charge-sheet had been issued there was a protracted enquiry by the Central Bureau of the Investigation who has recommended to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and other senior officers for the purpose of major penalty. It is so also a fact that before the charge-sheet had been issued there was a protracted enquiry by the Central Bureau of the Investigation who has recommended to initiate a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and other senior officers for the purpose of major penalty. When the imputation against the petitioner is that he contributed to the excess payment to the contractors amounting to more than 461 lacs of rupees then such impugation comes within the definition of misconduct under Rule 5 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Common Coal Cadre. ( 19 ) IT is a fact that the criminal case against the contractors has been quashed by the learned single judge of Patna High Court. The writ petitioner has drawn my attention to some observations in the judgment of the Patna High Court quashing the criminal proceeding under section 482 of the Cr. P. C. But those observations have nothing to, do with the present disciplinary proceeding. The Disciplinary authority is quite competent to produce relevant evidence in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the observations of the learned Judge quashing the criminal proceeding will have no bearing in such disciplinary enquiry. ( 20 ) IN that view of the matter, I am convinced that it is not a fit case in which the writ court would interfere to quash the charge sheet framed against the petitioner. However as the promotion of the petition has been held up for long, I would direct that disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order provided the petitioner participates in the proceeding and on giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to prove his defence. If the Respondent fails to conclude the proceeding within the above period even if the writ petitioner fully co-operates in the enquiry then the enquiry proceeding against the petitioner shall stand terminated. However if on account of any act or omission of the petitioner the enquiry cannot be concluded within the above period, then the Respondent shall be at liberty to pray for extension of period for concluding the enquiry with notice to the writ petitioner. ( 21 ) THE writ petition is thus disposed of. ( 22 ) THERE is no order as to costs. ( 21 ) THE writ petition is thus disposed of. ( 22 ) THERE is no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the operative portion of the Judgment for which signed copy shall he given upon usual undertaking. Petition disposed of.