INDU BHUSHAN PRASAD Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the letter dated 26.5.2012 (Annexure -12) by which his claim for promotion in Accountant Grade -A -1 has been rejected on the ground that charge sheet dated 10.11.2003 is pending against him for certain alleged misconduct. He has also sought quashing of the said departmental proceeding initiated vide letter dated 10.11.2003(Annexure -2). Consequently, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to grant him promotion in Accountant Grade -A -1 with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 3.3.2006 when several juniors to him have been promoted.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 18.1.1996 on the post of Accountant (T&S Grade -A). By letter dated 10.11.2003(Annexure -2) he was placed under suspension and asked to show cause for certain alleged charges in relation to passing of certain bills which led to the loss of Rs. 8,88,593.64 to the employer - C.C. Ltd. This related to the bitumen painting over roof of residential quarter at Kargali Area for Rs. 3,15,707; replacement of damage pipe line and repairing of leakage of main pipeline for Rs. 2,81,539.44; colour washing, distempering of K.S. Central School teachers and staffs quarter for Rs. 2,91,347.20. Petitioner contends that he immediately submitted reply to the said show cause denying all the allegations levelled against him and it appeared that the said explanation of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent authorities as till date no further action has been taken by the respondent authorities against the petitioner. It is further submitted that an F.I.R. being Bermo P.S. Case No 130 of 2003 was registered against the proprietor of Rohtas Engineering Construction with the allegations that because of passing of forged bills, he illegally received payment of Rs. 8,88,593.64/ -. In the meantime the petitioner was also implicated in the said case and he obtained bail on 9.1.2004 vide order passed in. B.A. No. 6898 of 2003 by a Bench of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.3.2004 his suspension was vacated by the respondents vide Annexure -5 and he was transferred to Dhori area. In the meantime the respondents had undertaken an exercise to grant promotion to certain persons to the post of Accountant Grade including the petitioner. However he was not allowed to join the promoted post inspite of the decision to promote him on 27/30.6.2008(Annexure -6). The criminal case which was initiated against the proprietor of Rohtas Engineering Construction in which other accused persons including the petitioner were proceeded against ultimately led to the acquittal of the accused persons vide judgment dated 15.4.2009 passed in T.R. No. 151 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 838 of 2003(Annexure -8). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said criminal case ended in his acquittal as the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubts. It is further contended that a perusal of the judgment itself would disclose that the accused persons were proceeded against for having led to the withdrawal of Rs. 8,88,593.64/ -, the same amount as has been referred in Annexure -2 - the alleged charge sheet, on the allegation that it was withdrawn on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet at Annexure -2 is not in the nature of charge sheet but in the nature of show cause. In any case it is submitted that the respondents themselves have not proceeded against him for the last 10 years in respect of the said allegation. In the meantime the petitioner has also been acquitted of the same charges by the competent Trial Court as aforesaid by the judgment contained at Annexure -8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the impugned charge sheet itself needs to be quashed. As such, the prosecution in the departmental proceeding which has remained pending for 10 years has led to the harassment of the petitioner for no fault of his as also denial of other benefits of promotion etc. on that account which is wholly unsustainable and bad in law.