JUDGMENT NIKHIL NATH BHATTACHARJEE, J. 1. Law is well settled to the effect that in the event, the authorities pre-judge the issue at the stage of framing of charges and the language used clearly indicate the state of mind, which is opposed to justice, equity and fair-play, the law Courts will not hesitate to strike down a charge-sheet in the event, the same suffers the vice as above. 2. On the state of facts, it appears that the petitioner. Dilip Kumar Chakraborty moved two writ applications, one in the Original Side of this Court being matter no. 2833 of 1993 dated November 2, 1992 and the other one in the Appellate Side of this Court being No. C.O. ............ dated November 23, 1992. Whereas the first writ petition filed in the Original Side as above, deals with an order of suspension dated October 2, 1992, the second petition in the Appellate Side deals with the charge-sheet dated 28 October- November 4, 1992. In the first petition the respondent obtained an order of stay for a period of eight weeks in regard to the order of suspension. In the second petition the petitioner obtained an order to the effect that the respondent authorities should not be permitted to proceed further with the charge-sheet pending finalisation of the report by the commission of enquiry. 3. Subsequently however, the matter in the Original Side again appeared in the list and was taken up on February 9, 1993 and after hearing the learned advocates of both sides, the learned Judge was pleased to order that the matter in the Appellate Side should be listed, the interim order of stay against the order of suspension will continue and the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed with the charge-sheet by giving all opportunities to the petitioner. Against this order the petitioner has come up on appeal being no alleging inter alia that unless this order is set aside, the order passed on November 23, 1992 would become infructuous and the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced and suffer irreparable loss and injury. The Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. has also preferred an appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 3959 of 1992 against the said order dated November 23, 1992. 4. The Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. has also preferred an appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 3959 of 1992 against the said order dated November 23, 1992. 4. The writ petitioner in his memorandum of appeal states that enjoying unblemished reputation in the mining sector in different collieries for the past three decades, he joined Madhusudanpur Collieries under the Eastern Coal Fields Limited in 1987 and has been working there with due regard to the production and safety aspects of the mining operation. On 17th September 1992 in the afternoon an accident took place in the said collieries due to sudden collapse of the intermittent parting between the top and the bottom section of the Jambad Coal seam, as a result of which one of the workers working there succumbed and two others received injuries. Following the accident the authorities constituted a four member enquiry committee to examine and assess the nature and cause of the said accident. The petitioner states that during the pendency of the said enquiry, he was placed under suspension and as he challenged the said suspension order and obtained a stay, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the basis of a charge-sheet by an order dated 28th October 1992/4th November 1992. 5. The case of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited, on the other hand, is that Madhusudanpur Collieries is working Jambad Seam in two sections i.e. Jambad bottom and Jambad top. Both the sections have been developed, bottom section along the seam floor and top section above stone band at a height of about 7.5/8 M from the floor varying in thickness. Over Jambad seam workings there were waterlogged working of Kajora seam in three patches. Due to the waterlogged working Director General of Mine Safety permitted extraction of pillers in Jambad seam only by splitting of pillers and stowing the voids both bottom and top section. On 17th November, 1992 while Sri Nichal Kora. Sri Jahaj Bouri and Tejnarayan Rajbhar were repairing the leakage in the stowing range, there was a sudden collapse of the intermittent parting between the top and bottom section and as a result while Tejnarayan was completely buried the other two mazdoors were partly buried and ultimately Tejnarayan succumbed to his injury, the other two received serious injuries. Sri Jahaj Bouri and Tejnarayan Rajbhar were repairing the leakage in the stowing range, there was a sudden collapse of the intermittent parting between the top and bottom section and as a result while Tejnarayan was completely buried the other two mazdoors were partly buried and ultimately Tejnarayan succumbed to his injury, the other two received serious injuries. It is stated that on 14th September, 1992 in the second shift a small collapse of parting at the said place was reported to the respondent-petitioner but the respondent-petitioner did not feel it necessary to inspect the said site. It was, however, inspected by the Manager and Assistant Manager and the Safety Officer on 15th September 1992 and as per the direction of the respondent-petitioner they closed the hold created due to collapse of the parting by stowing. At that place stowing continued for four hours which indicate the existence of voids in JB-16 panel. But inspite of the same the workers had been engaged over such voids in consequence whereof the fatal accident took place. In view of this fatal accident and also as complaints were received from influential political sector about irregularities in the said collieries in the matter of stowing, a high power committee comprising of experts was constituted by an order dated 2nd September 1992 for a report by 30th October 1992. The terms of reference to the said committee were:- (i) To ascertain the reason for the collapse of the parting vis-a-vis the fatal accident as aforesaid. (ii) To ascertain whether there is my truth in the complaint that intermittent voids had been left while stowing both top rind bottom sections giving rise to such situation of parting collapse under roof weight. Subsequently the terms of reference were enlarged and the committee was reconstituted. Simultaneously with the constitution of the said committee the company also conducted a preliminary investigation departmentally by Sri S.K. Sengupta, Deputy CME, Safety of the internal Safety organisation to examine into the cause of such accident and to fix up responsibility for the same. Sri Sengupta submitted his report on October 15, 1992. In his report he stated that for the void in the bottom seam i.e. in JB-16 panel, the present petitioner along with others cannot escape responsibility. Sri Sengupta submitted his report on October 15, 1992. In his report he stated that for the void in the bottom seam i.e. in JB-16 panel, the present petitioner along with others cannot escape responsibility. He further reported that then were definite dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner and others in the matter of existence of the voids. Based on this report a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner and others and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was placed under suspension and eventually the impugned charge-sheet was issued and following Court's order dated 2nd November 1992 the order of suspension was withdrawn and he was transferred to J.K. Ropeways of the company in the same capacity as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer. 6. The charge-sheet and the statement of imputation in support thereof served upon the writ petitioner runs as follows:- "You are charged with having committed the following acts as misconduct:- (i) You have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests or image of the Company. (ii) You have neglected your works or shown negligence in the performance of duties as a Manager. (iii) You have also acted in breach of the Company's Safety Rules/Circulars/Guidelines as well as the provisions of the Mines Regulations. 1957/Circulars/letters issued by the DGNS. The above charges are based on the following allegations:- (i) From the Enquiry Report of the fatal accident to Tejnarayan Rajbhar, Stowing Mazdoor, Madhusudanpur Colliery, Kajora Area on 17.9.1992 at about 1.00 P.M as submitted by the Internal Safety Organisation of ECL, HQ. Sanctoria, it has been found that the fatal accident to the said worker took place in depillaring with stowing in panel JT-16 in Jambad Top Section on 17.9.1992 at about 1.00 P.M. due to collapse of the parting between Jambad Top Section and Jambad Bottom Section at 33½ level between 3 and 3½ W dips when the deceased was engaged in stowing the area along with another worker. Sri Jahaj Bouri, Stowing Mazdoor who also went down due to collapse of the parting but was somehow saved. The area of collapse was fairly large being around 10.5 X 3 meter initially which had subsequently extended further and the vertical drop of the collapsed parting was about 3 meter. Sri Jahaj Bouri, Stowing Mazdoor who also went down due to collapse of the parting but was somehow saved. The area of collapse was fairly large being around 10.5 X 3 meter initially which had subsequently extended further and the vertical drop of the collapsed parting was about 3 meter. The collapse of the parting had taken place as there was unstowed void of more than 10.5 X 3 meter in area and about 3 meter in height in JB-16 which was fully known to you but still the voids were left in stowed in JB-16 panel and the workmen were allowed to be engaged in JT-16 panel over such voids. Thus, it clearly shows that you had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests or the image of the Company. (ii) It is further alleged that on 14.9.1992 in the second shift, a small collapse of the parting between JT-16 and JB-16 took place at 34 L and 1½ dip junction which you reported to the Agent and inspected the said site on 15.9.1992 along with the Assistant Manager and the Safety Officer. Thereafter, you, as per Agent's direction dosed the hole created due to collapse of the parting by stowing. At that place stowing continued for four hours only which clearly indicates the existence of voids in JB-16 panel but still persons were engaged over such voids in consequence of which the fatal accident to Tejnarayan Rajbhar occurred on 17.9.1992 at about 1.00 P.M. in the panel JT-16." 7. Dr. Monotosh Mukherjee appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the issues referred to the commission of enquiry being identical with the charges leveled against the writ petitioner the issuance of the charge-sheet before the report of enquiry was received shows a closed and biased mind on the part of the authorities. He also contended that when in facts a commission of enquiry was set up to find out the reasons for the accident, as also to ascertain whether there was any truth in the complaint that intermittent voids had been left while stowing both top and bottom section giving rise to a situation where the parting may collapse, it was not proper on the part of the management to proceed against the writ petitioner before the report of the enquiry commission was received. Mr. Mr. R.P. Banerjee on behalf of the appellant writ petitioner Dilip Kumar Chakraborty in Matter No. 2833 and FMAT No. 3959 which we heard together with Matter No. 2832 and FMAT No. 3958 adopted the submissions made by Dr. Mukherjee and added that there must be a prima facie case in proceeding against a delinquent officer departmentally and when the matter was only under the stage of enquiry by a high power committee, the ingredient is seriously lacking and the very fact that a charge-sheet had been issued before the report of the commission of enquiry was received would only indicate that there was no application of independent mind and that the charge-sheet had been issued on some other consideration which by itself must show mala fides on the part of the respondent-authorities. 8. Dr. Mukherjee in this connection placed strong reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Subrata Bhattacharjee vs. Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers & other, 1984 (II) CHN 185 wherein the propriety of a charge-sheet was challenged on the ground that the same had been issued with a closed mind inasmuch as the authority concerned had already come to a finding about the guilt of the petitioner and the charge-sheet only recorded the same. In this case the charge-sheet ran as follows:- "You have submitted two bills for reimbursement of Traveling expenses............In your bill............you have falsely claimed air fare from Bombay to Calcutta...............though the same have been paid by Bombay Office vide. In your bill for 10.10.1983 you have falsely claimed lodging charges................though the same was paid by Bombay Office of our Company vide. By your abovementioned acts and commission you have committed fraud, dishonesty, cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of company's money." Banerjee, J. Sitting singly held that the language used in the charge-sheet clearly indicated that the authority concerned had a closed mind at the stage of even framing of charge. In the words of the Court. "The authorities have prejudged the issue even at the stage of framing of charge. The language used in the charge-sheet cannot simpliciter be termed to be unhappily worded. It shows a state of mind, which is opposed to justice, equity and fair play." 9. In the words of the Court. "The authorities have prejudged the issue even at the stage of framing of charge. The language used in the charge-sheet cannot simpliciter be termed to be unhappily worded. It shows a state of mind, which is opposed to justice, equity and fair play." 9. It appears that during the hearing of the aforesaid matter reliance was also placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Sunil Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal & other, 1977 CHN 1014, and Bimalakanta Mukherjee vs. State of West Bengal, 1980 (II) CHN 35. In both the cases proceedings were initiated on the ground of possessing disproportionate assets and definite sums of money were mentioned as being the amounts by which the assets appeared to have exceeded the income after deduction of the likely expenditure and the delinquent officers were charged for having taken pecuniary advantage to themselves, by the said respective amounts. In each case the Court held that the conclusion having been already drawn before the commencement of the enquiry, bias and closed mind on the part of the disciplinary authority were all too apparent. 10. In Subrata Bhattacharjee's case the words by your adovementioned acts and commission you have committed fraud, dishonesty, cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation of company's money are definitely conclusions which are to be reached only after the completion of the enquiry and not at the stage of framing of charge and the Court rightly held that the issues involved had been prejudged. In each of the other two decisions regarding disproportionate assets, valuation of the assets possessed by the delinquent officer and his income and likely expenditure during the alleged period of amassing the same, were computed behind his back before initiation of the enquiry and what the delinquent officer was asked to do was only to meet the same and here also by holding that the language used displayed a dosed and biased mind the court rightly forestalled the blatant injustice that was going to be perpetrated upon the charged officer. 11. In the instant case, there is no denying that a fatal accident took place due to the collapse of the parting. 11. In the instant case, there is no denying that a fatal accident took place due to the collapse of the parting. The preliminary investigation report is a pointer to negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the writ petitioner in the matter of intermittent voids being left unstowed which was said to be the cause of the accident. Admittedly a commission of enquiry had been set up and the charge-sheet was issued prior to receipt of the report thereof. In this connection, Mr. Mallick submitted that the ambit of the Enquiry Commission was far larger than that of the preliminary investigation. However, as the report of the Commission of Enquiry has since been received, at our behest, Mr. Mallick tabled the same before us when we read out some important portions to the hearing of Dr. Mukherjee and Mr. Banerjee. Apparently, on a cursory glance, the report of the Commission did not appear to be contradictory to the report of the preliminary investigation although there is every possibility that a dose scrutiny with technical expertise may reveal something which may sap its very foundation, at least in so far as the responsibility of the writ petitioner in the matter is concerned. We would, however, like to place on record that in the view which we have taken ultimately in this case, as will be seen shortly, there is likely to be an enquiry and during that enquiry the writ petitioner will be at liberty to requisition the said report and may, if he so likes, introduce it into evidence by way of his defence, to contradict the preliminary investigation report. In any case, the language used in the charge-sheet viz. you have committed the following acts of misconduct which are based on the following allegations does not in our view disclose a state of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority, which is already made up and which is opposed to justice and fair play. Of course, the word prima facie is not anywhere in the charge of imputation but mere failure to use that word cannot and should not be equated as a prior conclusion or presence of a dosed and biased mind. 12. In the Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. Biswanath Mukherjee, AIR 1972 Cal. Of course, the word prima facie is not anywhere in the charge of imputation but mere failure to use that word cannot and should not be equated as a prior conclusion or presence of a dosed and biased mind. 12. In the Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. Biswanath Mukherjee, AIR 1972 Cal. 401 , a Division Bench comprising P.B. Mukherjee C.J. and B.C. Mitra J. held:- "The proper way, in our view of interpreting a charge-sheet of this nature in disciplinary proceeding is not to be technically and legalistically strict as in the case of charge-sheet in criminal proceedings. This principle is well known. It should be fairly and reasonably interpreted in a common sense way to see that there is a plain statement of the thing complained of as wrong so that the party complained against may be put on his defence to meet the allegation." 13. In Kalipada Roy vs. District Collector of Food & Supplies, 1983(2) CLJ 406 , Chittatosh Mukherjee, J. sitting singly observed as follows:- "The finding of bias in issuing a charge-sheet cannot he found a priori from the mere language used. The said question is to be decided in the light of the relevant disciplinary rules and the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Merely because in compliance with the disciplinary rules the substance of the imputations have been definitely and distinctly set out, the Court cannot straightaway infer that the disciplinary authority was biased. The entire facts and circumstances ought to be considered to decide whether the delinquent officer could reasonably apprehend that a bias on the part of his disciplinary authority had operated in issuing the charge-sheet." 14. Following these two decisions and after careful consideration of the wordings, we are inclined to hold that fairly and reasonably interpreted in a common sense way the impugned charge-sheet on the face of it does not boil down to having been issued with a mind already made up, lacking in impartiality and with objectivity. In our opinion, the wordings are not such as may create an apprehension in the mind of the writ petitioner that some other consideration must have weighed with the disciplinary authority in issuing the charge-sheet. 15. Subrata Bhattacharjee's case strongly relied upon is thus distinguished on the language used and the likely apprehension that may emanate therefrom. 16. In our opinion, the wordings are not such as may create an apprehension in the mind of the writ petitioner that some other consideration must have weighed with the disciplinary authority in issuing the charge-sheet. 15. Subrata Bhattacharjee's case strongly relied upon is thus distinguished on the language used and the likely apprehension that may emanate therefrom. 16. Moreover, along with the memorandum of charge a list of witnesses by whom and the list of documents by which the charge-sheet is proposed to be sustained are also issued and the delinquent officer is asked to submit his explanation therefor. During the enquiry proceeding the writ petitioner would get ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and adduce his own evidence to set up his own defence. In any event it goes without saying that the enquiring authority should not be influenced by the allegations made unilaterally by the disciplinary authority. As a matter of fact after the report of the enquiry proceeding is received, the authority mayor may not accept the same and it is too early for the writ petitioner to apprehend that the enquiry officer would furnish a finding of guilt and the disciplinary authority would impose punishment upon him even though the report of enquiry is unacceptable on the evidences on record. Again it would remain always open to the writ petitioner to challenge the findings and the order of imposition of penalty, if any, by a fresh writ petition. 17. In such view of the matter as aforesaid, we are constrained to hold that the interim order of the learned trial Judge dated November 23, 1992 restraining the respondent-appellant Eastern Coalfields Ltd. from proceeding with the charge-sheet is not based on fuller appreciation of the materials made available and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The appeal preferred by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is therefore allowed. 18. In that view of the matter, the appellant writ petitioner's grievance that the interim order of the Court dated February 9, 1993 militates against the earlier order of the Court is not sustained and accordingly his appeal being Appeal No. of 1993 arising out of Matter No. 2833 of 1992 stands dismissed on contest. 19. In this connection we would like to keep on record that we have not expressed any final opinion about the legality and propriety of the impugned charge-sheet. 19. In this connection we would like to keep on record that we have not expressed any final opinion about the legality and propriety of the impugned charge-sheet. What we have stated is that the language of the impugned charge-sheet does not by itself make out that the disciplinary authority has proceeded against the writ petitioner with a closed and biased mind. That being so, it will remain open to the writ petitioner to challenge the charge-sheet as well on the basis of the evidences on record both on its factual aspects as also on its legality at any future point of time. 20. This order shall also govern FMAT No. 3959 of 1992 and applications relating thereto. There shall be no order as to cost. It is desired that the enquiry proceedings shall be completed with utmost expedition and preferably within 4 months from this date and the writ petitioner is hereby directed to co-operate with the Enquiring authority in every possible manner for completion of the proceedings. I agree. Appeal of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. allowed and interim order dated November 23, 1992 set aside. Writ petitioner's appeal arising out of Matter No. 2833 of 1992 is dismissed with direction for expeditious disposal of the enquiry proceeding preferably within 4 months.