Jharkhand High CourtBabu Chand Ram vs Central Coalfields Limited on 2 July, 2018Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 153Author:S.N. PathakBench:S. N. Pathak1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(S) No. 578 of 2017
     Babu Chand Ram                         ....                     ...     Petitioner
                       Versus
     1.    Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
     Darbhanga House, Ranchi
     2.    Senior Manager, Vigilance, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House,
     Ranchi
     3.    General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area, Ramgarh
                                                             ...   ..... Respondents
                              ------CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
                              -----
     For Petitioner          : Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, Advocate
                              Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
     For Respondents         : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                                     ---05/ 02.07.2018 The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing
     the office order under Ref. No. 1320 dated 17.12.2016 passed by the General
     Managr/Disciplinary Authority, Rajrappa Area, Central Coalfields Limited, whereby
     and whereunder, Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges
     framed against the petitioner in terms of Clause 2.3 of the Certified Standing Orders
     and further as per the settled principles of Departmental Enquiry the Enquiry Officer
     has been advised to submits his findings at the earliest but not later than six
     months from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer in terms of the directive
     of CVC.The short facts lying in narrow compass is that the petitioner was
     appointed to the post of General Mazdoor under Category I on 24.04.1990 under
     the respondents. An FIR, being R.C. case No. 11 (A ) of 2015-R dated 15.12.2015
     was registered for the offence punishable under Section 120 B read withSections
     420,468and471of the IPC andSection 13 (2)read withSection 13 (1)(d)of the
     Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been alleged in the FIR that while the
     petitioner was posted as Amin, Central Coalfields Limited, Rajrappa Area, he
     abused his official position and dishonestly and fraudulently raised / processed the
     proposals/applications for providing employment of six private persons as General
     Mazdoor, Category I in the Central Coalfields Limited, including Sri Chandan
     Kumar, nephew of the petitioner showing him as descendant of late Komal Tirkey,
     knowing full well that said Chandan Kumar is not related with the family of late
     Komal Tirkey and was not legally entitled for employment in lieu of land acquired by
     the Respondent-Central Coalfields Limited. In the said FIR, Sri P.K. Mishra,
     Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Ranchi was appointed as
     Investigating Officer.It is further the case of the petitioner that after completion of
     investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 30.06.2016 for2the offences punishable under Section 120 B read withSection 420,468and471of the IPC andSection 13 (2)read withSection 13 (1) (d)of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. On the same set of allegation, a departmental enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner in which charge sheet under Ref. No. 134 dated
18.10.2016 was served upon the petitioner, directing him to submit his explanation
within a week from the receipt of the charge sheet and four articles of charges were
framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on
26.10.2016 before the respondent, explaining his stand in respect of Charge sheet
No. 134 dated 18.10.2016 and denying the charges levelled against him.
Subsequently, vide Office Order under Ref. No. 1320 dated 17.12.2016 passed by
the General Managr/Disciplinary Authority, Rajrappa Area, CCL, Enquiry Officer has
been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner in terms of
Clause 2.3 of the Certified Standing Orders and further as per the settled principles
of Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has been advised to submit his
findings at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of appointment of
the Enquiry Officer in terms of the directive of CVC. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that if departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar set of facts and the charges in the criminal case against a
delinquent employee is of grave nature, it would be desirable to stay the
departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case. Therefore, on receipt
of the same, the petitioner approached before the respondents and prayed to stay
the departmental proceeding on the ground that the continuance of the same, will
prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Criminal Court. The petitioner, thus
has prayed, by filing this writ application, to direct the respondents not to proceed
with the departmental proceeding which arises, on the same set of facts.Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents while passing the impugned order has not considered the fact that the
charges in the departmental proceeding are replica of the charge sheet submitted
by the CBI in criminal proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that on the facts
of the case, the departmental proceedings needs to be stayed till final disposal of
the criminal case. He submits that if the departmental proceeding is allowed to
continue, his entire defence will have to be opened, which will have direct adverse
bearing upon the criminal case. He submits that the impugned order dated
17.12.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that in the cases
in which charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are of
same nature, completely based on same set of facts and evidence to be produced
in the departmental proceeding and before the Trial Court, the same is liable to be
quashed.Per contra, counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the3respondents. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
         respondents very fairly submits that issues involved in this writ petition have
         already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in its judgment
         delivered on 12.08.2016 in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015 and since the Hon'ble Court
         has dismissed the said writ application, this case may also be dismissed in view of
         the observations made in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015.After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on
         perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to interfere and accede to the
         prayer of the petitioner as the similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon'ble
         Court in W.P.(S) No.4425 of 2015 and vide order dated 12.08.2016, a co-ordinate
         Bench of this Hon'ble Court was of the view that:-22. In view of what has been held above, I am of the view that
                continuance of the departmental proceeding cannot be stayed merely
                because a criminal case of similar nature is pending against the
                petitioner.23.In the facts and circumstances of this case, especially relying upon
                the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofKendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas(supra), whose
                facts is similar to that of the case in hand, I do not find it proper to stay the
                departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case.As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, rules,
         guidelines and observations, I do not find any merit in the instant case. Resultantly,
         this writ petition stands dismissed.(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

punit/