MAINAK DUTTA, SON OF LATE DEVA PRASAD DUTTA, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 2B, SHASHWATI APARTMENT, LAKE AVENUE, KANKE ROAD, RANCHI, P.O. & P.S. Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, DARBHANGA HOUSE, P.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner calls in question, the legality and propriety of the order and the decision of the Enquiry Officer dated 20.07.2016, turning down the request of the petitioner for calling for documents and for quashing of the said order. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents-inquiring authority to allow the request of the petitioner as made vide application/letter dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure-21) and dated 15.07.2016 (Annexure-23) of the writ application.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that, on 4.10.2013, the CBI, Dhanbad registered an FIR before the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad vide RC11 (A)/2013-D alleging amassing of assets beyond the known sources of income. I.A. No. 7991 of 20103 has been filed in W.P. (S) No. 6391 of 2013 seeking stay of the process of selection as interview stood held on 14.10.2013 and also for implementation of earlier orders of this Court and vide order dated 31.10.2013 this Court stayed the process of selection till further hearing. It has been further averred in the writ application that on the same day i.e. 31.10.2013, a team of CBI officials reached at the petitioner's residence with a search warrant to search on the basis of FIR, RC11(A)/2013-D, dated 4.10.2013. It has been further submitted in the writ application that the petitioner received a departmental memo from the disciplinary authority pertaining to payment of service tax, as stated above, along with the statement of imputation of misconduct and the office memorandum dated 21.10.2013 and, thus, minor penalty proceedings were initiated against him, although the learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad had set him free from the criminality and also did not recommend for any departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 2.12.2013 with a request to quash the same. It has been further averred in the writ application that all along the petitioner has been subjected to unfair treatment aimed at jeopardising his career prospects and thereby to benefit others who have been in peer-competition. By filing supplementary affidavit, dated 5.8.2016, the petitioner has brought on record, copies of the charge-sheet dated 30.09.2015 filed in RC 11(A)/2013-D and the CBI's search list dated 24.2.2012 and 31.10.2013.

(3.) It has been submitted that founded upon the lodgment of criminal case by the CBI (DA Case) and allegations levelled by the CBI as to acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, a departmental proceeding got initiated against the petitioner, in which, the petitioner wrote a request letter dated 05.04.2016 to the CMD-cum-Disciplinary Authority for supply of all documents seized by the CBI on 24.02.2012 and 31.10.2013 besides documents enlisted in Annexure III based on which Articles of Charges were framed. But in the 13th sitting of the proceeding held on 20.07.2016, the Inquiring Authority gave his decision denying to call for each and every document.