Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1381 (JHR)

Babu Chand Ram v. Central Coalfields Limited

2018-07-02

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J – The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order under Ref. No. 1320 dated 17.12.2016 passed by the General Managr/Disciplinary Authority, Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Limited, whereby and whereunder, Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Certified Standing Orders and further as per the settled principles of Departmental Enquiry the Enquiry Officer has been advised to submits his findings at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer in terms of the directive of CVC. 2. The short facts lying in narrow compass is that the petitioner was appointed to the post of General Mazdoor under Category I on 24.04.1990 under the respondents. An FIR, being R.C. case No. 11 (A ) of 2015-R dated 15.12.2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 120 B read with Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been alleged in the FIR that while the petitioner was posted as Amin, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area, he abused his official position and dishonestly and fraudulently raised / processed the proposals/applications for providing employment of six private persons as General Mazdoor, Category I in the Central Coalfields Limited, including Sri Chandan Kumar, nephew of the petitioner showing him as descendant of late Komal Tirkey, knowing full well that said Chandan Kumar is not related with the family of late Komal Tirkey and was not legally entitled for employment in lieu of land acquired by the Respondent-Central Coalfields Limited. In the said FIR, Sri P.K. Mishra, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Ranchi was appointed as Investigating Officer. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 30.06.2016 for the offences punishable under Section 120 B read with Section 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the same set of allegation, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which charge sheet under Ref. On the same set of allegation, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in which charge sheet under Ref. No. 134 dated 18.10.2016 was served upon the petitioner, directing him to submit his explanation within a week from the receipt of the charge sheet and four articles of charges were framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 26.10.2016 before the respondent, explaining his stand in respect of Charge sheet No. 134 dated 18.10.2016 and denying the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, vide Office Order under Ref. No. 1320 dated 17.12.2016 passed by the General Managr/Disciplinary Authority, Rajrappa Area, CCL, Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Certified Standing Orders and further as per the settled principles of Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has been advised to submit his findings at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer in terms of the directive of CVC. It is the specific case of the petitioner that if departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case against a delinquent employee is of grave nature, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case. Therefore, on receipt of the same, the petitioner approached before the respondents and prayed to stay the departmental proceeding on the ground that the continuance of the same, will prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Criminal Court. The petitioner, thus has prayed, by filing this writ application, to direct the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceeding which arises, on the same set of facts. 4. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents while passing the impugned order has not considered the fact that the charges in the departmental proceeding are replica of the charge sheet submitted by the CBI in criminal proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that on the facts of the case, the departmental proceedings needs to be stayed till final disposal of the criminal case. He submits that if the departmental proceeding is allowed to continue, his entire defence will have to be opened, which will have direct adverse bearing upon the criminal case. Learned counsel further submits that on the facts of the case, the departmental proceedings needs to be stayed till final disposal of the criminal case. He submits that if the departmental proceeding is allowed to continue, his entire defence will have to be opened, which will have direct adverse bearing upon the criminal case. He submits that the impugned order dated 17.12.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that in the cases in which charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are of same nature, completely based on same set of facts and evidence to be produced in the departmental proceeding and before the Trial Court, the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition have already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon''ble Court in its judgment delivered on 12.08.2016 in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015 and since the Hon''ble Court has dismissed the said writ application, this case may also be dismissed in view of the observations made in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere and accede to the prayer of the petitioner as the similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon''ble Court in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015 and vide order dated 12.08.2016, a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon''ble Court was of the view that:- 22. In view of what has been held above, I am of the view that continuance of the departmental proceeding cannot be stayed merely because a criminal case of similar nature is pending against the petitioner. 23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, especially relying upon the judgment delivered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas , whose facts is similar to that of the case in hand, I do not find it proper to stay the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, rules, guidelines and observations, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed.