Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 300 (JHR)

Prasanta Kumar Karmakar v. Union Of India

2001-05-02

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present application has been preferred by four petitioners, namely, Prasanta Kumar Karmakar, Debasish Panja, Chiranjib Mukherjee & Amal Kumar Banerjee for direction on the respondents to stay the departmental proceeding till finalisation of criminal charges, arising out of Seraidhella (Dhanbad) PS Case No. 422 of 1999. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the charge in the departmental proceeding being same and similar and incidental to the charges as levelled in the aforesaid criminal case, the respondent should await the decision of such criminal proceeding. 3. The respondents have opposed the writ petition and their counsel tried to highlight the charges to show that most of the charges are not related to the criminal charge and they may proceed independently. 4. I have perused the charges as levelled against one or other petitioner as enclosed with the writ petition. 5. So far as petitioner, Prasanta Kumar Karmakar is concerned, the article of charge Nos. I, III & V relate to criminal act, as alleged against the petitioner in the FIR and/or incidental thereto. On the other hand, the other charges, namely, article of charge Nos. II. IV VI & VII have no relationship with the criminal act. Therein misconduct has been alleged against the petitioner for absence from duty, an attempt to show wrong presence and wrong entry in the register and for taking drink. 6. In the aforesaid background, while I direct the respondents not to proceed with article of charge Nos. I, III & V, so far as petitioner, Prasanta Kumar Karmakar is concerned and reject the prayer of petitioner to stay the proceedings in respect to article of charge Nos. II, IV, VI & VII. The respondents may proceed in respect to the aforesaid charges. 7. So far as petitioner, Debasish Panja is concerned, the article of charge Nos. I, II & III are directly related to be charge as levelled in the criminal proceeding. However, the article of charge Nos. IV & V are independent. While charge No. IV relates to taking drink in wireless operators room located in the office complex, charge No. V merely shows the earlier punishment, as was inflicted. 8. In the aforesaid background, the respondents are directed not to proceed with article of charge Nos. However, the article of charge Nos. IV & V are independent. While charge No. IV relates to taking drink in wireless operators room located in the office complex, charge No. V merely shows the earlier punishment, as was inflicted. 8. In the aforesaid background, the respondents are directed not to proceed with article of charge Nos. I, II & III till final decision in the criminal case pending against the petitioner, Debasish Panja. However, the prayer of petitioner, Debasish Panja in respect to article of charge Nos. IV & V are rejected. The respondents are given liberty to proceed with the aforesaid two charges against the petitioner, Debasish Panja. 9. Similar is the case of petitioner. Chiranjib Mukherjee, in his case, article of charge Nos. I, III & IV relate to criminal act and incidental thereto. However, article of charge No. II is independent relating to taking drink in wireless operators room located in the office complex. 10. In the aforesaid background, while I direct the respondents not to proceed with article of charge Nos. I, III & IV, till final decision in the criminal proceeding, so far it relates to Chiranjib Mukherjee. The prayer of the said petitioner in respect to article of charge No. II is rejected. The respondents are given liberty to proceed in respect to article of charge No. II against the said petitioner. 11. So far as petitioner, Amal Kumar. Banerjee Is concerned, article of charge Nos. I, III & V related to the criminal act and the incidental charges. The respondents are directed to await the decision of criminal proceeding in respect to such charges. 12. So far as prayer of the said petitioner in respect to article of charge Nos. II, IV. VI & VII are concerned, his prayer is rejected as it relates to absence from duty; an attempt to show wrong presence and wrong entry in the register; taking drink in the wireless operators room located in the office complex and past precedent which are independent charges of misconduct and cannot be determined in the criminal proceeding. The respondents may proceed in respect to the aforesaid charges so far as petitioner, Amal Kumar Banerjee is concerned. 13. The respondents may proceed in respect to the aforesaid charges so far as petitioner, Amal Kumar Banerjee is concerned. 13. However, this order will not stand in the way of respondents to proceed in respect to the charges connected with the criminal act and incidental, after final disposal of the criminal case as pending against one or other petitioner. 14. So far as change of enquiry officer and payment of subsistence allowance are concerned, the petitioner may approach the competent-authority. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid observations. 16. Petition disposed of