LALDEO SINGH Vs. COAL INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition dated July 23, 1992, a charge -sheet dated January 29, 1992 is under challenge. By an order dated July 24, 1992 it was admitted, and the departmental proceeding was stayed by way of interim relief. The contents of the said charge -sheet, are as follows:

(2.) This case and another writ petition, registered as Civil Order No. 1438 (W) of 1992 (Sri Jay Prakash Das v/s. Coal India Ltd. and Ors.) have been heard together. The two matters have been heard together in view of the order dated September 10, 2002 passed in said Civil Order No. 1438 (W) of 1992.

(3.) The Petitioner is a grade -l clerk posted at Shyam -sundarpur colliery at Bankola area of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited, a subsidiary of the Coal India Limited. In the year 1987, one Bara Lakhman Das, an underground loader of Tilaboni colliery of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited, took voluntary premature retirement on medical ground. On compassionate ground, a person, named: Jay Prakash Das, was given employment, as dependant, i.e., son, of said Bara Lakhman Das, It may be mentioned here that the other writ petition (Civil Order no 1438 (W) of 1992) was filed by said Jay Prakash Das. A complaint was lodged with the Eastern Coal Fields Limited that said Jay Prakash Das was not the son of said Bara Lakhman Das, but was, actually, the son of the Petitioner. Consequently, a charge -sheet dated December 1, 1987 was issued against said Jay Prakash Das. An enquiry was held, and in that, the Petitioner also deposed as a witness. The enquiry officer submitted a report with the findings that the charge levelled against said Jay Prakash Das had not been proved. Before the final decision was taken by the disciplinary authority, in the said disciplinary proceeding initiated against said Jay Prakash Das, in the year 1988 the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'C.B.I.') had registered a first information report and started a regular case: that case had been started against the Petitioner, said Jay Prakash Das and others. In the year 1991, the C.B.I, submitted the report that on investigation it had been ascertained that said Jay Prakash Das was really not the son of said Bara Lakh -man Das, but was the son of the Petitioner. The C.B.I, recommended departmental proceedings against the Petitioner and said Jay Prakash Das. In the circumstances, the disciplinary authority dropped the previous proceeding initiated against said Jay Prakash Das; and by issuing two separate charge -sheets, both dated January 29, 1992, commenced new disciplinary proceedings, simultaneously, against said Jay Prakash Das and the Petitioner. Challenging such charge -sheets the present petition was filed by the Petitioner, and the other writ petition had been filed by said Jay Prakash Das.