Jharkhand High Court
Prashant Bajpai vs Coal India Limited & Ors on 20 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1876 of 2021
Prashant Bajpai ... Petitioner
Vs.
Coal India Limited & Ors. ... Respondents
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
-----------
I.A. No. 2873 of 2021
03/ 20.07.2021 This interlocutory application has been filed for staying of the
Disciplinary Proceeding during the pendency of the instant writ petition.
Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the
departmental proceeding has been initiated on the basis of criminal charges and as the
charges are identical in nature, it is very good case where the departmental proceeding
ought to have been stayed till outcome of the instant writ petition. He further submits
that not only the charges are identical, even the witnesses are same. He further
submits that complicated question of law is involved in view of the celebrated
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Cap. Paul Antony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines
Limited, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 679. To buttress his argument, learned counsel
places heavy reliance on the following judgment :
1. Hindustan Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sarvesh Berry, reported in (2005 ) 10 SCC
2. Awinash Sadashiv Bhosle Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in
(2012) 13 SCC 142.
3. Md. Rafique Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2018 (1)
JLJR, 514.
On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that this writ petition is itself pre-mature, as without filing of the reply to the
show cause, the petitioner has rushed to this Hon'ble Court, which is impermissible in
the eyes of law. He further submits that the charges as against the petitioner, are grave
in nature. The charges are not same and identical and also the witnesses are not
identical. He places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T. Srinivas, reported in (2004) 7
SCC 442 and submits that it is not a fit case for staying the departmental proceeding
and as such, this interlocutory is liable to be dismissed.
Countering the argument of learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.
Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, is not correct as the petitioner
has already filed his show cause reply.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the
parties, prima facie it appears that writ petition is pre-mature as instead of filing reply
to the show cause in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has rushed to this
Court. Whether charges are identical and witnesses are same, all these have to be
looked in to by the Enquiry Officer, not by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, this
Court is not incline for staying the departmental proceedings as no case is made out for
interference and as such, I.A. No. 2873 of 2021 stands dismissed.
W.P. (S) No. 1876 of 2021
Issue notice to respondent No.1 under registered cover with A/D as
well as through Ordinary Process for which requisites etc. must be filed, within a
period of two weeks.
Put up this case after eight weeks.
In the meantime, respondents are directed to file counter-affidavit.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
punit/-
