DHANANJAY PRASAD, SON OF LATE DWARIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SAUNDA BASTI, P.O. Vs. M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, A SUBSIDIARY OF COAL INDIA LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DARBHANGA HOUSE, RANCHI, P.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure-5), whereby a decision has been taken by the respondent no. 3 to hold enquiry in terms of Clause 28.1 of the Certified Standing Order and further prayer has been made for stay of the further departmental proceedings and the petitioner has further prayed for payment of arrears of salary.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell are that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Accounts Trainee at Regional Store under the Respondent no. 1. In course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Assistant Store Keeper and Store Keeper. While continuing on the post of the Store Keeper, a complaint, First Information Report dated 24.04.2012 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and after thorough enquiry, the C.B.I. submitted charge sheet against the petitioner on 31.05.2013. The allegations in the charge sheet pertains to acquisition of disproportionate assets. The petitioner was taken into custody in connection with the First Information Report, dated 24.04.2012, but ultimately, vide order passed in Special Leave of Appeal (Cr.) No. 390 of 2015 by the Honourable Apex Court, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his joining before the respondent No. 3, but, in stead of accepting his joining report, the respondent No. 4 issued a Charge-sheet against the petitioner on the allegation of committing misconduct within the meaning of Clause-26.15 and 22.22 of the Certified Standing Order of the respondent No. 1. After receipt of the charges, the petitioner submitted his reply denying and disputing the allegations made in the Charge-sheet. The respondent No. 3 vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2015 decided to initiate Departmental proceeding against the petitioner and appointed the respondent No. 4 as enquiry Officer. Due to initiation of the departmental proceedings which is identical to the criminal case, the petitioner left with no alternative has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the sole ground for initiation of the departmental proceeding is the pendency of a criminal case before the Court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation of misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet being subject-matter of a criminal trial, cannot run parallel in view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations as well as the nature of evidences being same and identical in criminal trial as well as Disciplinary proceedings, the decision for initiation of Departmental proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that the charge sheet suffers from the vices of non-consideration of Clause 26.15 and 26.22 of the Certified Standing Order of the respondent No. 1 and moreover, the allegations imputed against the petitioner do not constitute any misconduct within the meaning of Clause 26.15 and 22.22 of the Certified Standing Order so as to justify the continuance of the Disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the impugned proceeding is against the provisions of \ 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to continuance of departmental proceeding, the very defence will be disclosed. It has been further submitted that the witnesses are common in criminal case and departmental proceedings and therefore, in the interest of justice, departmental proceedings ought to be stayed and the disclosure of defence would lead to serious consequences and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be protected against all prejudice. He further submits that if the departmental proceeding is allowed to continue, the defence will be disclosed, which would have an impact on the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that it is the settled principle of law that the departmental proceeding can be stayed, while the criminal case is pending. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another and (ii) L.P.A. No. 265 of 2016 in the case of Subrato Sengupta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors . By referring to the said judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are based on similar facts and the witnesses being the same, the departmental proceedings ought to be stayed.