Jharkhand High Court
Abhijit Das vs The Coal India Limited Through Its ... on 26 September, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 415 of 2022
----------
Abhijit Das, son of late Anil Kumar Das, resident of Mugma Area,
ECL, Mugma, P.O. Mugma, P.S. Mugma, Dist. Dhanbad
(Jharkhand) and permanent resident of Flat No. 405, Vasundhara
Apartment, 27, Italgacha Road, P.O. Italgacha, P.S. Dumdum, Dist.
Kolkata (West Bengal). ....... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Coal India Limited through its Chairman having its office at
Coal Bhawan Premise No. 4, New Town, Rajarhat, P.O.
Rajarhat, P.S. Rajarhat, Dist. Kolkata (West Bengal).
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
having its office at Eastern Coalfields Ltd., office of the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh,
Dist. West Bardhaman (West Bengal).
3. The General Manager, Mugma Area, Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
Mugma, P.O. Mugma, P.S. Mugma, Dist. Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
......... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
------
11/ 26.09.2024 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
direction upon the respondent not to proceed further with the
departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner pursuant to
memo dated 30.08.2021, issued under the signature of the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Disciplinary Authority,
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. till the disposal of the criminal case being
R.C. Case No. 01(A)/2021-D.
3. As per the facts of the case, on 20.02.2021 an FIR being RC
Case No. 01(A)/2021-D was registered against the petitioner for
the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 by the CBI based on the written report filed
by Prem Kumar Sinha, Proprietor of M/s. Ajit Enterprises alleging
therein that petitioner demanded Rs.25,000/- as bribe for signing
the TCR in the matter of tenders issued by ECL, Mugma Area for
supply of electrical and mechanical items. Subsequently, the trap
was conducted on the same day i.e. 20.02.2021 and the petitioner
was arrested. Accordingly, memorandum of recovery and seizure
was also prepared. The petitioner approached this Court for grant
of bail in B.A. No. 5936 of 2021 which was allowed vide order
dated 13.07.2021 and consequently, the petitioner was released
from judicial custody.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner in contemplation of the
said criminal case, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director &
Disciplinary Authority, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vide memo dated
30.08.2021 proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner
under Rule 30 of the Coal India Executive Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal Rules and further directed the petitioner to submit written
statement of defence within a period of 10 days of receipt of
memorandum.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that on
the same set of charges, the departmental proceeding as well as
criminal case have been initiated against the petitioner. Referring
to plethora of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as by this Court, learned counsel submits that law is well
settled that if the charges are similar and identical and witness and
evidences are same, the disciplinary authority ought to have waited
for the outcome of criminal case. Referring to celebrated judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679
and other similar cases, it has been submitted that this Court
should direct the respondents to refrain from concluding the
departmental proceeding and wait till the outcome of the criminal
proceeding.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-ECL at the very outset
submits that matter was heard earlier before this Court on
21.04.2022 and a direction was given not to pass final order in the
departmental proceeding. It has been further argued that
departmental proceeding has already been concluded by issuance
of show-cause notice but no final order has been passed till date in
view of order passed by this Court. It has been submitted that
criminal case has not seen the light of the day and since petitioner
has already been superannuated, a direction be given to the
respondents to pass final order in the departmental proceeding.
7. Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the view
that criminal case and departmental proceeding are on different
parameters. From perusal of para-24 of the writ petition it appears
that petitioner has tried to impress this Court that evidences and
witnesses in the departmental proceeding are same and similar to
that of the criminal trial. The Court is not much impressed by the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Though
reliance has been placed in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony
(supra), the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable in the
present case. Law is well settled that there is no legal bar to
conduct departmental proceeding and criminal trial
simultaneously particularly when the level of proof in both the
proceedings is different and the purpose with which the
departmental proceedings are conducted is also not identical with
the purpose with which the criminal case is prosecuted for an
offence committed by the employee.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was trapped demanding illegal
gratification of Rs.19,500/-, the same will be decided in the
criminal trial. The departmental proceeding has no bearing with
the criminal trial. Since the departmental proceeding initiated
against the petitioner has already been concluded, I hereby
directed the respondents to pass final order in accordance with law
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production
of a copy of this order. Needless to say if the petitioner is acquitted
in the criminal case, it will be open for him to move the
respondents who will take legal recourse and pass suitable order in
accordance with law. The Criminal Court shall not be prejudiced
by the order passed in the departmental proceeding.
9. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal
