SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF JAINANDAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF QR. NO. C/20, TOPA OFFICERS COLONY, P.O. & P.S. KUJU, DISTRICT Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the legality and propriety of the letter bearing reference no. CCL/VIG/RDA-2012/16/16-17/1752 dated 07.10.2016 issued by respondent no.1, whereby respondent has rejected the memorandum of the petitioner as unsatisfactory and directed an enquiry to be held by appointing the enquiring authority, the instant writ application has been filed for quashing the same and further relief has been sought for quashing the memorandum of charges as contained in letter bearing reference No. CCL/VIG/RDA-12/16/16-17/550 dated 30.05.2016 pertaining to memorandum of charges of accepting of illegal gratification.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that while the petitioner was posted as Mining Manager in Gidi-C Collier, Argada Area, a written complaint was lodged by one Awadhesh Kumar Upadhyay posted as Assistant Store Keeper before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi alleging demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner. Upon such complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Ranchi along with the complainant arrived at about 11.15 A.M on 15.12.2015 at the workshop where it is alleged that the petitioner demanded money from the complainant @ Rs. 2500.00 per week and the first instalment to be paid on 16.12.2015. The said conversation between the complainant and the petitioner was over heard by the Sub-inspector of Police and basing upon such facts, the CBI registered FIR, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition bearing No. RC 13(A)/2015 R dated 16.12.2015 under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested on 18.12.2015 and remained in judicial custody till he was granted regular bail vide order dated 25.02.2016 passed in B.A. No.1170 of 2016. In pursuance to registration of F.I.R., a trap team was constituted on 17.12.2015 and the petitioner was caught red handed at around 12.015 hours. Because of remaining in judicial custody, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 31.12.2015 and said suspension was revoked vide order dated 04.06.2016. The petitioner was served with memorandum of charges under Rule 29 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1978 (amended up to April 2000) of CIL and the petitioner submitted his representation dated 23.06.2016 for grant of time and the copies of the documents referred to in the charge for furnishing his defence. On 08.08.2016 respondent no.1 in reference to Rule 29.3 of the CDA Rules refused to provide the document and only permitted the petitioner for inspection and to submit his response within 15 days thereafter. On 19.08.2016 the petitioner inspected the documents and on 6.09.2016 the petitioner submitted letter to respondent no.1 endorsing and reiterating his reply submitted on 23.06.2016 and respondent no.1 vide letter dated 07.10.2016 rejected the representation of the petitioner as unsatisfactory and further ordered the enquiry to be proceeded by appointment of the inquiring authority. Vide letter dated 07.10.2016 the respondent no.1 appointed the presenting officer and in pursuance to the appointment of the enquiry officer, the inquiry officer directed the petitioner to appear on 01.11.2016 for participating in the proceeding. On 21.10.2016, noticed was issued to the petitioner, whereby date of enquiry was scheduled on 01.11.2016 was postponed to 29.10.2016 for reasons sated therein and in the meantime CBI has completed its investigation and submitted his charge sheet no.02/2016 on 12.02.2016.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that perusal of charge sheet dated 12.02.2016 and the memorandum of charges dated 30.05.2016 would indicate that the documentary and the oral evidences in the departmental proceeding are same and identical to the criminal case. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his argument that in view of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 more particularly referring to paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment has submitted that departmental proceeding ought to be stayed till conclusion of the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that memorandum of charges dated 30.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-2/1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2016 that the statement of article of charges have been instituted against the petitioner for illegal gratification under Rule 4 and 5 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of CIL (amended up to April 2000) also tantamount to misconduct to the said rules for the alleged omission and commission on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceedings the documents which have been relied upon are also the same documents which have been relied by the CBI and the list of witnesses as contained in article of charges are part and parcel of the trap case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that another glaring infirmity in the departmental proceeding is that witnesses at serial no.6 and 8 namely P. K. Burman and Goni Singh, who are not in the list of witnesses of CBI cases, have been examined in the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to supplementary affidavit dated 07.12.2016 has submitted that in case of another employee, departmental proceeding was kept in abeyance till finalization of the criminal case by the order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Ltd., therefore, the case of the petitioner being of similar nature, the disciplinary authority should not adopt any discriminatory treatment so far as similarly placed employees are concerned.