SUKHDEO YADAV Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED, DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the respondents are not taking decision, after filing of the departmental charge -sheet against the petitioner and after report of the inquiry officer is received and, therefore, the petitioner should also be allowed to work with the respondents, as similarly situated another person, namely, Nand Dulal Chatterjee, is allowed to work with the respondents.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that there are serious charges, levelled against the present petitioner, by the respondents, which are at Annexure 1 to the interlocutory application bearing I.A.No. 2565 of 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that because of the negligence on the part of the present petitioner, death of two persons has taken place and, therefore, a Complaint Case bearing C.M.A. Case No. 1 of 1997 was registered under Section 72A/72(C)(1)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952 and, thereafter, the trial was conducted and the present petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. Thereafter, an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 95 of 2004 was preferred by the petitioner -accused and the same was also dismissed. Thus, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed against the petitioneraccused, has been confirmed. It appears that thereafter, the present petitioner has preferred a revision application before this Court bearing Cr. Rev. No. 328 of 2006 and in the said revision application, the present petitioner has been enlarged on bail. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court, has not been stayed, looking to the nature of charges against the present petitioner and the report of the inquiry officer, now a final decision will be taken, if not yet taken, by the respondents, by imposing punishment against the petitioner, within the stipulated time, as given by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that another prayer of the present petitioner for payment of salary for the intervening period will also be considered and decided by the respondents, in accordance with law. So far as the third prayer, made by the petitioner, is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will also take a decision as to whether the petitioner should be allowed to work with the respondents or not. All these three decisions will be taken by the respondents, without any loss of time and within the stipulated period, as given by this Court.

(3.) IN view of these submissions, I hereby direct the respondents to firstly, take a decision of punishment, to be inflicted upon the petitioner, secondly, for payment of salary for the intervening period, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policies, and thirdly, since the petitioner is comparing himself with one Sri Nand Dulal Chatterjee and Santosh Kumar Agrawal, the respondents will also decide whether the petitioner should also be allowed to work with the respondents nor not. On all these three points, decision will be taken by the respondents, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, passed by this Court.