JUDGMENT 1. THE writ petitioner, an Additional Chief mining Engineer, Project Division, Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Kayla bhawan, Dhanbad, Bihar, has filled the present writ petition for praying, inter alia:- (a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to Cancel, rescind, withdraw and/or set aside the impugned order of suspension being No. BCCL/x/c/47 (l)/92/675 dated 29. 9. 92 issued by the respondent No. 4 herein, being Annexure - D' herein, and further forbearing the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to and/or from taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the aloresaid order of suspension. (b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to quash the disciplinery proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the chargesheet dated 10th October, 1992 being No. BCCL/ee/x/c/47 (l)/92/700 issued by the respondent no. 4 herein, being Annexure 'e' herein, and further forbearing the respondent from taking any steps or further steps pursuant to the aforesaid chargesheet against the petitioner. (c) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind, withdraw, quash and/or set aside the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the chargesheet dated 16. 1. 93 being no. BCCL/ee/k/ c/4/93/40 issued by the respondent No. 4 herein, being Annexure - 'h' herein, and further forbearing the respondents from taking any steps or further steps pursuant to and/or acting or further acting in furtherence of the aforesaid chargesheet in any manner whatsoever. (d) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to withhold the promotion of the petitioner because of the pendency of the criminal investigation and/ or criminal case. (e) A writ of and/or in the nature; of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding any further and/or taking any further steps pursuant to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and the chargesheets dated 10. 10. 92 and 16. 1. 93 respect - lively both issued by the respondent No. 4 being Annexures E' and h' respectively, and to allow the petitioner to resume his duties without any disturbance/interference from the end of the respondents authorities in any manner whatsoever. 10. 92 and 16. 1. 93 respect - lively both issued by the respondent No. 4 being Annexures E' and h' respectively, and to allow the petitioner to resume his duties without any disturbance/interference from the end of the respondents authorities in any manner whatsoever. (f) A writ of and/of in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the entire records of the case before this Hon'ble court and to certify the same so that after perusing the same conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the disciplinary proceedings including the chargesheets, as aforesaid. (g) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) to (f) as above. (h) Grant an ad- interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect of further effect and/or taking any steps or further steps and/or from acting in furtherence of the impugned order of suspension dated 29. 9. 92 issued by the respondent No. 4 being annexure 'd' and to allow the petitioner to resume his, duties and carry on his functions as Area General Manager without any disturbance/interference in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the Rule. (i) Grant an ad-interim order restraining the ressondents from taking any steps/further steps pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings including the chargesheets dated 10. 10. 92 and 16. 1. 1993 issued by the respondent No. 4 being Annexures 'e' and 'h' respectively against the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to carry on his duties an general manager without any disturance / interference till the disposal of the Rule. (j) Grant an ad-interim order of injunction in terms of prayers (g) and (h) as above. (k) To make the Rule absolute and to pass such other order or orders as to your Lordships may fit and proper. 2. IT is stated in details that for various satisfactory services and considering the past record the petitioner was granted, promotions at a comparatively quicker period and ultimately he was promoted to the rank of e-7 as the Additional Chief Mining Engineer and posted as the Area general Manager in March 1988. It is placed on record that for the purpose of appropriate and efficient administrative and statutory functioning and control of Collieries, the company has been composed of number of Areas and each area counsists of a number collieries. It is placed on record that for the purpose of appropriate and efficient administrative and statutory functioning and control of Collieries, the company has been composed of number of Areas and each area counsists of a number collieries. The petitioner was working as the General manager of one of the such areas, namely, Kusunda Area consisting of 8 (eight) collieries being East Busseriya, Gonudih, Khas kusunda, K. O. C. P. and Dhansar, Kusunda Industry and Busseriya colleries. There is a chart of the position of the executive as regards the administrative Control. It is contended that although the General Manager is having the vicarious responsibility, yet the direct responsibility are with the agent and/the manager. The day to day functions of Collieries are as per the order of the Agent and the manager. The Coal production, despatch of coal, the management of col stock are under the direct supervision and control of the Agent and the manager. The Agent and the manager are required to submit the reports of coal production, coal despatch, book stock of coal and physical stock of coal in prescribed forms of the company to the General Manager. The petitioner was however transferred to Head Quarter, Koyla bhawan, and he stood released with effect from 29. 9. 1992 from Kusunda area and he was directed to report for duty to Director (Tech) P and P Koyla bhawan. He was however, arrested by the C. B. I. Officials on 29th September, 1992 on the basis of an F. I. R. lodged by the Inspector of Police central Bureau of Investigation dated 28. 9. 92 bringing forth some charges related to Personal Assistant of the petitioner for an attempt to bribe the officials of the investigation team, as regards the verification of the Stock of Coal. The petitioner was however released on bail on the self-same date. On October 19. 1992. the petitioner received an order dated 29. 9 1992 issued by the respondent No. 4, The Chairman/managing Director Bharat coking Coal Limited, that a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is contemplated and the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect, i. e., 29. 9. 1992. On 15th October, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 10. 10. 1992 issued by the said respondent no. 9 1992 issued by the respondent No. 4, The Chairman/managing Director Bharat coking Coal Limited, that a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is contemplated and the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect, i. e., 29. 9. 1992. On 15th October, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 10. 10. 1992 issued by the said respondent no. 4, where from it would transpire that the petitioner has been charged with having committed the following acts of misconduct : "1. Failed to maintain devotion to duly. 2. Acted in a manner prejuduicial to interest or image of the company. 3. Neglect of work of negligence in the performance of duty. 3. THERE is an indication in the charge-sheet that the above charges are based on the allegations of the B. C. C. L. measurement team daring measurement of coal stock shortage of Dhansar/kccp Colliery or. 1. 4. 1992 and 1. 9. 1992 which found that there was shortage in the stock of coal and details were being given. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet on December 20. 1992. The petitioner has again been served with another charge sheet dated January l6, 1993 issued by the respondent no. 4 where from it transpired that the petitioner has been charged with having committed the following acts of misconduct. 1. Failed to maintain devotion to duty. 2. Theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with business of the company. 3. Acted in a manner prejudicial to interest or image of the company. 4. Neglect of work of negligence in the performance of duty. 4. WILFUL damage to the property of the company. " 5. In the second charge sheet it is stated that such charges have been levelled on the allegation of the B. C. C. L. measurement team conducting measurement of coal stock; of the East Bassuriya, Khas Kusunda, gundudih and Kusunda collieries of Kununda area. It is disclosed there that as a General Manager of the Area this shortage could not be explained by the writ petitioner to the measurement team satisfactorily which indicates either it has been destroyed, sold or stolen by some one. As general Manager of the Area during the aforesaid period the petitioner should have exercised proper control so that such irregularities and shortage of coal would not have occurred. As general Manager of the Area during the aforesaid period the petitioner should have exercised proper control so that such irregularities and shortage of coal would not have occurred. This has caused huge loss to the company which has resulted from his inaction and failure in supervision. The petitioner has been asked to explain within a stipulated time. By order dated 29th September, 1992 the petitioner has been under suspension with immediate effect in view of the Rule 21 (1) of the Conduct. Discipline and Appeal rules, 1978. It was made clear that during the period of order of suspension the headquarters of the petitioner shall be Project and Planning Directorate, Koyla Bhawan and he will report to Shri T. P. Basu, Chief General Manager (P and P) presently posted at Headquarters in the said Directorate. The petitioner shall not leave the head-quarter without obtaining the previous permission of the Chairman. 5. BEING aggrieved the petitioner has come to this Court praying reliefs as indicated above on the grounds that the respondents authorities without being prima facie satisfied about the commitment of the petitioner with regard to the alleged act of misconduct issued the impugned order of suspension and as such the same is illegal, bad. defective and otherwise is liable to be set aside. It is asserted that merely because the investigation by the CBI the question of issuance of the impugned order of suspension does not and cannot airse. The Respondent No. 4 has got no authority to issue the impugned order of suspension. The charges levelled against the petitioner are utterly vague, indefinite and evasive. If both the charges are placed side by side it would be evident that the alleged factum or measurement and shortage of coal are nothing but a cooked up story having no factual basis whatsoever so as to harass the petitioner. All the steps against the petitioner are inconsistent and those are not justificiable. 6. THE writ petition is opposed by Coal India Limited Authority by filing a comprehensive affidavit- in- opposition sworn by Ganesh Chandra Mrig. the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (a subsidiary of Coal India Limited ). It is disclosed therein that the writ petitioner is an Officer in E-7 grade and is in the cader of an Additional Chief mining Engineer. During the period 1989 till 29. 9. the Chairman -cum -Managing Director of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited (a subsidiary of Coal India Limited ). It is disclosed therein that the writ petitioner is an Officer in E-7 grade and is in the cader of an Additional Chief mining Engineer. During the period 1989 till 29. 9. 1992 the writ petitioner was in charge of Kusunda Area as the General Manager. There was no other Senior Officer or even an Officer of equal rank in the said area. Kusunda Open Cast Mine, which is known as KOCP, is within the Kusunda area. The Manager of Kusunda area was at the relevant time Mr. K. P. Shukla. The agent of KOCP was A. N. Singh at the relevant time. On receipt of"complaint regarding unauthorised disposal of coal in the KOCP area. The Chief General Manager (co-ordination) was asked to measure the stock of Coal in KOCP area. As per his report there was shortage of stock of coal to the extent of 2. 49 lacs, metric tons as on 1. 4. 1992. Further measurement was, thereafter, carried out and it was found that as on 992 the shorstge of stock of coal - increased to 6. 15,653 matric tons, value of which would be about Rs. 25 crores. A term from Central Bureau of Investigation started investigation into the matter of shortage of stock of coal. On 29. 9. 1992 a news item appeared in several newspapers where -from it appeared that U. S. Singh, General Manager of Kusunda area and a. N. Singh, agent of KOCP and S. N. Singh, Secretary to the petitioner had been arrested by the C. B. I, on the charge of attempting to bribe cbi Officers, who were investigating into the shortage of coal. The situation became very serious and an urgent action as called for. On 29. 9. 1992. the chairman initialed departmental proceedings against the said three officers. On 29. 9. 1992, the Chairman of Bharat Coking Coal Limited had telephonic discussion with the Chairman of Coal India Limited. A decision was taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the said three officers. Upon being apprised of the entire situation and the shortage of quantity of coal, the Chairman of Coal India Limited decided and agreed that U. S. Singh and A. N. Singh should be placed under suspension with immediate effect pending issue of the chargesheet. A decision was taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the said three officers. Upon being apprised of the entire situation and the shortage of quantity of coal, the Chairman of Coal India Limited decided and agreed that U. S. Singh and A. N. Singh should be placed under suspension with immediate effect pending issue of the chargesheet. The Chairman of the Coal India Limited asked the Chairman of Bharat Coking Coal Limited to send the noting sheet to get the approval. The secretary to the petitioner was an officer of E-3 grade and he was also suspended by the Respondent no. 4 on the same day. All the three suspension orders have been communicated to the persons concerned. It has been placed on record that u. S. Singh was an Officer of the same rank of S. K. Gupta who has assumed the charge of KOCP area., it would be ambarrassing for U. S. Singh to report to S. K. Gupta after issue of order of suspension and order of transfer/posting of U. S. Singh to report to S. K. Gupta after issue of U. S. Singh at Koyla Bhavan, Dhanbad. It was made clear that a residential quarter had also been allocated at Koylanagar Dhanbad. The disciplinary proceedings would involve looking into the records of stock of coal on various date and employees working at KOCP. The records and employees would be mainly available and also at the area office at Kusunda of which u. S. Singh was in charge. It was decided that U. S. Singh should be suspended or otherwise there would be apprehension/possibility of tampering of records. All the Officers who are in charge of the records are subordinates to U. S. Singh for long time. The petitioner had been working in kusunda area for more than 15 years in different capacity. The order of transfer/posting of the petitioner was really notional and the order of suspension was made in order to have a fair enquiry. All other allegations of the writ petitioner have ben denied and controverted. 7. THE writ petitioner, however, filled an affidavit -in -reply reiterating the points raised in the writ petition. 8. DR. Monotosh Mukherjee appearing with Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee and Mr. All other allegations of the writ petitioner have ben denied and controverted. 7. THE writ petitioner, however, filled an affidavit -in -reply reiterating the points raised in the writ petition. 8. DR. Monotosh Mukherjee appearing with Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee and Mr. Amaresh Chakraborty for the writ petitioner argued at length that the order of suspension and also the order of chargesheet are misconceived, illegal and without basis and the interference by the Writ Court is not genuinely required. In support of the contention they have referred to various reports and decisions manely (Subramanian vs. State of Kerala and ors.) 1973 (1) SLR Page 521; (Kusheswar Dubey vs. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal ltd. and ors) AIR 1988 SC page 2118 and paragraph 6 thereof; 1978 LIC Page 41 and relevant position at Page 47 and also AIR 1984 SC Page 1361 and particularly paragraph 22 thereof. The ratio of the said decision is not in doubt and / or in dispute. The principle of law has to be applied as per the facts available in each case. It is no doubt true that the order of suspension of a public officer should not be made in any arbitrary manner and any order of suspension if made casually it will cause a main harm and suffering to the person concerned. It is also well settled principle of law in service jurisprudence that charge-sheet should not be issued which would be vague, evasive and indefinite. 9. BY applying all the tests to the facts in issue of the present case this court finds that admittedly then; is a stock verification of the Coal and there is a huge shortage. The petitioner, being the General Manager has to explain the same. The chargesheet has been levelled. The petitioner has filed the reply. 10. THERE is no bar and/or impediment to complete the investigation and the petitioner cannot avert the same. Since the petitioner filed the replies, the respondents should expedite the Enquiry and it is open to the petitioner to raise his points in defence before the enquiry Officer. There is also no bar for the disciplinary authority to pass the final order and to communicate the same. If the petitioner is found to be aggrieved, he can certainly take effective steps in the manner as envisaged under law. Upon persual of all the materials on record this. There is also no bar for the disciplinary authority to pass the final order and to communicate the same. If the petitioner is found to be aggrieved, he can certainly take effective steps in the manner as envisaged under law. Upon persual of all the materials on record this. Court's conscience is not satisfied that at this stage the chargesheet should be quashed and the petitioner should be allowed to go scot free. The shortages of coal are in relaity, and the responsibility has to be fixed and there should be a proper enquiry. All three officers concerned have been charge sheeted. Incidentally, it appears from the materials on record that one of the Officers who has been charge-sheeted has come to this Court and by order dated 20. 7. 1993 this Court allowed the enquiry to be completed and no interim order was made with regard to the order of suspension. Be that as it may, this court is considering the present case in depth and in details. This Court scrutinised the chargesheet. This court has also considered the submissions made by dr. Monotosh Mukherjee for the Writ petitioner and Mr. Anindya Mitra appearing with Mr. Udayan Sen for the respondents. The attention of the court has been drawn by Mr. Anindya Mitra that there is huge shortage of coal and the involvement of the petitioner is very much relevant. Enquiry proceedings are bonafide and without any bias. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that the petitioner has been working in the area for a long period and the order of suspension is all the more relevant to have a free and fair enquiry without having any attempt by the petitioner in any manner what -so- ever. This Court, with great anxiety, has considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The order of suspension is certainly not an order of punishment. It is appreciated that the order of suspension should not be made light-heartedly. The observation of the Hon'ble Kerala high Court and also the observation of the Division Bench of this Court has indicated list of decision referred to above. This Court has to consider whether the order of suspension made against the petitioner if tested properly should be set aside or not. The observation of the Hon'ble Kerala high Court and also the observation of the Division Bench of this Court has indicated list of decision referred to above. This Court has to consider whether the order of suspension made against the petitioner if tested properly should be set aside or not. By considering the mateials in depth this Court is of the view that the presence of the petitioner and to permit him to work at his present posting will not be proper during the course of enquiry. Certainly the petitioner is a Senior Officer. Records are lying with his subordinate Officers. Any presence of the petitioner may cause embarrassment and there will be hindrance to have a free and fair enquiry. In order to avoid any suspicion and to avoid any unnecessary complications and with a view to have a free and fair enquiry, the suspension of the petitioner should remain till the equiry. This court, however, finds that the enquiry proceedings should not be for any unnecessary and indefinite period to cause any undue suffering, anxiety and tension of the petitioner. For the fitness of things this Court directs that the enquiry must be completed within 4 months from the date of the communication of the order by giving all opportunities to the petitioner and the petitioner will also co-operate and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. The final order shall be made within 2 months from filing of the enquiry report, and the same should not be given effect to for 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can seek remedies in an appropriate forum against the final order. If the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated period as indicated above the order of suspension will stand revoked and the petitioner will be entitled to join. 11. THE writ petition is thus dispersed with the necessary directions and observations as made above. There will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.