Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 790 (JHR)

Vijay Kumar Verma v. Central Coal Fields Ltd.

2001-12-04

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the charge framed in the departmental proceeding communicated by memorandum dated 5th September, 2000 is based on same set of facts and evidence, sighted in the CBI case being R.C. No. 11A of 1999 (R). 2. It is further alleged that though the petitioner was allowed the subsistence allowance @ 50% but from the subsequent year it has been brought down to 25% on the ground that the petitioner is not attending the day to day enquiry. 3. According to the petitioner the day to day enquiry in the departmental proceeding has been fixed on such date when the date in the criminal proceeding is being fixed. For the said reason the petitioner could not attend the day to day departmental proceeding having been fixed on the same date. 4. Mr. Banerjee, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and relied on the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 , which was also referred by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Having regards to the facts and circumstances as it appears that no substantive progress is made in the CBI case and the departmental proceeding is pending since September, 2000, I am not inclined to interfere with the proceeding for the present. 6. The petitioner may appear in the departmental proceeding to defend himself from the charges as levelled against him. It is expected that the proceeding will be concluded as early as possible. The petitioner will co-operate in the departmental proceeding failing which the respondent may proceed ex-parte in accordance with law. 7. The respondents are directed not to fix such date in the departmental enquiry on which the CBI case is fixed by the competent Court of law. They are also directed to take fresh decision to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance @ 50% including the arrears to which he is entitled, immediately. 8. Whether the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance @ 75% or not this issue may be determined by the competent authority, the petitioner if so approaches. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of.