SUSANTA KUMAR DEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in Writ Petition No. 5226 (W) of 2005 on 17th of November, 2006 whereby the learned single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition with costs. At the relevant time petitioner No. 1 was working as General Manager (Corporate Planning) of Northern Coalfield Ltd. He retired on 31st of March, 2005. He was posted as Manager of Kathara Colliery from August 17, "1983 to May 11, 1990. Petitioner No. 2 was working as Project Officer of Kathara Washery from June 26, 1989 to June 1, 1984. Petitioner No. 3 joined as General Manager of Kathara area of Central Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to CCL) on June 3, 1988 and left Kathara area on transfer on 17th of February, 1994. Petitioner No. 4 worked as Project Officer at the Kathara Colliery from June 6, 19.88 to September 30, 2002. One G. B. Mukerjee, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India, lodged a complaint with director C.B.I. through Letter No. 13027/9/94 VIG dated 8, 1996 alleging that there had been false and fictitious dispatch of 7.33 lacs tonnes of coal from Kathara Colliery to Kathara Washery during a period 1989 to 1991. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the C.B.I, registered a case against petitioner No. 3, namely Aran Kumar Sinha (hereinafter referred to as Sinha) and other unknown officers as well as some private persons of the Kathara Colliery and Kathara Washery under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. F.I.R. No. RC IC (A)/97 dated January 13, 1997 was filed. After investigation, charge- sheet was filed under Sections 120B and 477A IPC and under Sections 13(2) and 13 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, Jharkhand. The charges, mainly, are as follows :-

(2.) The petitioners claim that the aforesaid charges are baseless. Since the merits of the issue involved in this case are not relevant, it would not be necessary to detail plea taken by the writ petitioners. Petitioners claim that the stock shortage in CCL on 31st of March, 1988 had been written off and it was approved by the CCL and CIL Boards. It is also a matter of records that no financial loss was caused.

(3.) So far the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he had been issued a warning when he was working as Colliery Manager at Kathara Colliery during the period August 18, 1983 to 11th of May, 1990, to be careful while carrying out operational assignment n future. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 stood exonerated of the charges. Petitioner No. 4 was charge- sheeted by order dated 1-12-1999 for the same shortage of coal stock. However, none of the charges against him were proved. Therefore, he was also exonerated. Petitioner No. 3 was also completely exonerated by order of November 5/23 of 2001.