ASHOK KUMAR NONIA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality.

(2.) The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dtd. 2/11/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dtd. 7/4/2020, by which, prayer for reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service with all consequential benefits on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case being R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D) has been rejected.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the writ petitioner that while he was working as Bill Clerk in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (in short "M/s. BCCL"), a written complaint was made to the CBI, Dhanbad on 8/9/2014 by one Niranjan Mahto, a fitter in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL alleging that the writ petitioner has made a demand of gratification of Rs.500.00 for preparing his arrear bill of Rs.25,000.00. The CBI, Dhanbad, based upon the above complaint, lodged an FIR being R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D) on 8/9/2014 for commission of offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI, Dhanbad has constituted a trap team, in which, the writ petitioner was trapped and arrested on 9/9/2014. The investigation was carried out and on its conclusion, charge-sheet was submitted on 7/11/2014 for commission of offence under Ss. 7/13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly, trial was commenced against the writ petitioner. The respondent BCCL has also instituted a departmental proceeding by issuing a memorandum of charge on 22/4/2015 leveling therein the allegation, which according to the writ petitioner, exactly the same to the charges contained in the charge- sheet of pending criminal case. The departmental proceeding culminated and in consequence upon the same, an order was passed on 20/4/2017, by which, the respondent BCCL imposed a penalty of dismissal of the writ petitioner from service. Further, the case of the writ petitioner is that after passing of the order of dismissal in the departmental proceeding, the criminal trial against the writ petitioner was concluded, in which, the writ petitioner was acquitted from the charges vide judgment dtd. 29/2/2020, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad. The writ petitioner in consequence upon acquittal in the criminal case, has made representation before the respondent BCCL for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits but the same was rejected on 7/4/2020 on the ground that the criminal case registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent BCCL are entirely different and the judgment of the criminal case is not binding on the domestic enquiry. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has filed a writ petition for quashing of the order dtd. 7/4/2020 being W.P.(S) No.1534 of 2020, wherein, the prayer has been made for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits on the ground of his acquittal in criminal case, has been rejected. The writ petitioner has taken the ground before the learned writ Court that he has been dismissed from service pursuant to the departmental proceeding on the alleged charge of illegal gratification of Rs.500.00. Further, the ground has been taken that on the same set of allegation, a criminal case was also instituted prior to initiation of departmental proceeding, wherein, the writ petitioner has been honourably acquitted and as such, deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The respondent BCCL had appeared and taken the ground that oral evidence in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceedings were different. The reference of enquiry report of the departmental proceeding dated 18/20/2/2017 has also been made, wherein, it transpires that there were four Management witnesses who were examined and cross-examined and from the detailed judgment dtd. 29/2/2020, passed in R.C. Case No.10(A)/2014(D), it transpires that in the criminal proceeding, there were altogether 14 prosecution witnesses and amongst these 14 prosecution witnesses, all four management witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Further, ground has been taken that documentary evidence in the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding, were different and therefore, the claim of the writ petitioner for quashing of the order dtd. 7/4/2020, is not worth to be considered. Learned Single Judge, on appreciation of rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, has dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the order dtd. 7/4/2020, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.