Jharkhand High Court
Central Coalfields Limited vs Sandeep Kumar on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
--------
L.P.A. No. 502 of 2024
------
1. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O. GPO., P.S.
Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand), and also through its H.O.D.
(Legal) Sri Jobe V.P., aged about 53 years, s/o Late V.V. Philip,
residing at 396/B, Road No.4-C, Ashok Nagar, P.O.-Doranda,
P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand), who is also
representing the other appellants herein.
2. General Manager, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited,
Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Argara, District-Ramgarh.
3. General Manager (Vigilance), Argada Area, Central Coalfields
Limited, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Argara, District-Ramgarh.
4. Project Officer, Sirka Group, Sirka, Argada Area, Central
Coalfields Limited, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Argara, District-
Ramgarh.
... ... Appellants/ Respondents
Versus
Sandeep Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Late Mehru Lal
Saw, resident of Subhash Nagar Colony, Quarter No.BDS/61,
Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Argada, District Ramgarh.
... ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate
.....
th
C.A.V./Reserved on 24 March, 2025 Pronounced on 23/04/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed
against the order/judgment dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1930 of 2024, whereby and
whereunder, the departmental proceeding initiated against the
respondent-writ petitioner has been stayed till conclusion of the
criminal case.
Factual Matrix:
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition,
which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The respondent-writ petitioner is a Clerk Gr.-II posted in Sirka
Colliery, Argada Area, Central Coalfields Limited, District Ramgarh.
A complaint was lodged against the respondent-writ petitioner by
one Lata Devi on 19.09.2023 stating therein that she had applied for the
compassionate appointment but the respondent-writ petitioner was
demanding illegal gratification for movement of file to the tune of
Rs.30,000/-.
On the basis of the said complaint, a raid was conducted and the
respondent-writ petitioner was taken into custody on 04.10.2023. The
chargesheet has already been filed and cognizance has already been
taken on 22.12.2023 which will be evident from the FIR dated
04.10.2023.
Thereafter, the respondent-writ petitioner was enlarged on bail on
22.03.2024 and when the respondent-writ petitioner was behind the bar,
a chargesheet was issued on 10.02.2024 for the same set of charge.
After the chargesheet having been served, the respondent-writ petitioner
filed a reply to the same on 19.02.2024 and denied the charges levelled
against him.
After the bail having been granted in favour of the respondent-
writ petitioner, the respondent-writ petitioner made representation for
his joining but the same was not accepted. The respondent-writ
petitioner also made representation for stay of the departmental
proceeding to the Project Officer, Sirka Colliery, Argada Area,
Ramgarh on 01.04.2024 and not to take any coercive steps against the
respondent-writ petitioner in terms of the initiation of the departmental
proceeding as in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal
proceeding, the charges are same and similar but the same having not
been done, the respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court by
invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1930 of
2024 in which the departmental proceeding initiated against the
respondent-writ petitioner has been stayed till concussion of the
criminal case against which the present letters patent appeal has been
filed by the appellants herein (respondents to the writ petitioner).
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that respondent-writ petitioner
while working as Clerk Gr.-II was caught red-handed in accepting the
bribed money and thereafter, a criminal case was instituted under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the said criminal case,
chargesheet has been submitted and simultaneous to the said case, a
departmental proceeding has also been instituted by issuance of
memorandum of charge on 10.02.2024 alleging therein the allegation
that the respondent-writ petitioner has abused his official position, acted
in a manner unbecoming a public servant and failed to maintain
absolute integrity as Clerk Gr.-II, Sirka Colliery which tarnished the
image and was detrimental to the interests of the Company.
The respondent-writ petitioner, after issuance of the
memorandum of charge and when the decision was taken to initiate a
departmental proceeding vide resolution dated 12.12.2023, the
respondent-writ petitioner has approached to this Court by invoking the
jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging the chargesheet dated 10.02.2024 along with the
departmental proceeding.
4. The learned Single Judge has called upon the respondent-Company,
appellants herein. The appellant-Company raised objection that there is
no bar in initiation of simultaneous departmental and criminal
proceeding together. The learned Single Judge, however, has passed the
order by allowing the writ petition staying the departmental proceeding
with the observation that after the disposal of criminal case, the
department would be free to continue with the departmental proceeding,
if so advised. The said order is under challenge by filing the instant
intra-court appeal.
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants:
5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant-CCL has taken
the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
(i) That the departmental proceeding is only to be stayed if the
charge in the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are
so complicated in nature that the same cannot be segregated with
each other then only the departmental proceeding can be stayed
awaiting for the outcome of the criminal case but herein, the
nature of the charge is not so complex that there cannot be any
segregation of the evidence rather the case herein is of trap in
which the respondent-writ petitioner has been caught red-handed
while accepting the bribed money from the complainant but the
aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken into
consideration by the learned Single Judge.
(ii) There is no question of any prejudice since the issue of prejudice
has also been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
Another, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 but the ratio of the said
judgment has not properly been appreciated by the learned Single
Judge.
(iii) The charge in the criminal case as well as in the departmental
proceeding cannot be said to be identical since the charge in the
criminal case is of acceptance of the gratification while in the
departmental proceeding, the charge is of moral turpitude of
shocking the confidence for retaining the respondent-writ
petitioner in service. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, without
appreciating the aforesaid fact, has gone into the premise that
both the criminal case and departmental proceeding are same.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from error, as
such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
Submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent:
7. Per contra, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the respondent-writ
petitioner has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned
order:
(i) There is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge
since the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the
identical issues in both the criminal and departmental proceeding.
(ii) The question of prejudice is of paramount bearing and by taking
into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned
Single Judge has kept the departmental proceeding in abeyance
awaiting the outcome of the criminal case so that the respondent-
writ petitioner may not be prejudiced due to the conclusion of the
departmental proceeding.
(iii) The fact about ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
Another (supra) having not been followed as has been argued by
the learned counsel for the appellants, is not correct if the ratio so
laid down in the said judgment will be taken into consideration.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, based upon the
aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge on
appreciation of these aspect of the matter, if has stayed the departmental
proceeding awaiting the outcome of the criminal case, the same cannot
be said to suffer from any error, hence, the instant appeal is fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis:
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the
documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
10. The admitted fact herein is that in a case of trap, the respondent-writ
petitioner has been caught red-handed. FIR has also been instituted
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A departmental
proceeding has also been initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner
by issuance of chargesheet imputing therein the allegation that the
respondent-writ petitioner has advertently abused his official position,
acted in a manner unbecoming a public servant and failed to maintain
absolute integrity as Clerk Gr.-II, Sirka Colliery which tarnished the
image and was detrimental to the interests of the Company.
11. The respondent-writ petitioner, in the premise of issuance of
chargesheet dated 10.02.2024, has approached to this Court by filing
writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1930 of 2024 under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking relief for stay of the departmental
proceeding in course of pending criminal case. The same has been
allowed by keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance which is
the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal.
12. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission advanced on
behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to refer herein the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
13. It is evident from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Md.
Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699, wherein the difference between the
purpose of departmental enquiry and criminal trial has been carved out
holding therein that the purpose of departmental enquiry and the
prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal
prosecution is launched for an offence in violation of duty, the offender
owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the
offender shall make satisfaction to the public, so crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or omission of public duty. While the
departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and
efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the
disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously
as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as
inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer.
Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances.
14. The law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another
(supra) stipulates that there would be no bar to proceed simultaneously
with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge
in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions
of fact and law. Such offence generally implies infringement of public,
as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal
law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in
accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence led and
defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Converse is the case
of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in departmental proceedings
relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish
him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law.
The strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands
excluded is a settled legal position.
The enquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to the
conduct of the delinquent officer and proof in that behalf is not as high
as in an offence in criminal charge. It is seen that invariably the
departmental enquiry has to be conducted expeditiously so as to
effectuate efficiency in public administration and the criminal trial will
take its own course. The nature of evidence in criminal trial is entirely
different from the departmental proceedings.
In the former, prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt on the touchstone of human conduct. The standard of proof in the
departmental proceedings is not the same as of the criminal trial. The
evidence also is different from the standard point of the Evidence Act.
The evidence required in the departmental enquiry is not regulated by
the Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, what is required to be
seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a
question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own
facts and circumstances.
15. In another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417, the same view
has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex court.
16. In the judgment rendered in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex court while dealing with the
situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding vis-
a-vis criminal proceeding, has arrived at following conclusions:--
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can
proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted
simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on
identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case
against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which
involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be
desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion
of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and
whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that
case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case
launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and
material collected against him during investigation or as reflected
in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in
isolation to stay the departmental-proceedings but due regard has
to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be
unduly delayed.
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly
delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on
account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and
proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if
the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and
in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at
the earliest.
17. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. vs. Girish V. and Ors., (2014) 3
SCC 636, their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with
the situation of continuation of simultaneous proceeding both in
departmental as well as criminal proceeding, has been pleased to hold
by taking note of all the earlier judgments rendered at paragraph-16
which reads as under:--
"16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of
the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously,
stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases
where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their
defence before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however,
not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge
involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining
the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged
indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for
trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses
cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance
between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and
the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing
disciplinary-proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the
interest of the employees."
18. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, on the basis
of a complaint made by one Lata Devi of demanding Rs.30,000/- for
movement of file for extending the benefit of compassionate
appointment, a case was registered by CBI in which the chargesheet
was also submitted. The departmental proceeding was also initiated
vide issuance of chargesheet dated 10.02.2024 that the respondent-writ
petitioner has abused his official position, acted in a manner
unbecoming a public servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity as
Clerk Gr.-II, Sirka Colliery which tarnished the image and was
detrimental to the interests of the Company, thereby committed
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
misconduct as referred in the Certified Standing Order applicable for
workmen working under the appellant-CCL, the employer.
19. It is, thus, evident that in the criminal case, the charge was of demand
of gratification while the departmental proceeding has been initiated on
the ground of failing to maintain absolute integrity as Clerk Gr.-II,
Sirka Colliery which tarnished the image and was detrimental to the
interests of the Company.
20. Hence, according to our considered view, the charge in both the
proceedings are quite different and distinct to each other.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner relying upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M.
Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another (supra), ratio
of the same has been followed in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India
(P) Ltd. vs. Girish V. and Ors. (supra), has submitted that there is no
bar in simultaneous continuation of the criminal case and departmental
proceeding adjudged on the related facts of the case.
22. We, on consideration of the aforesaid judgments, have found from the
ratio laid down therein that the same is to be considered only in a case
which is complex in nature involving grave and complicated question of
law and fact. But, we after going through the memorandum of charge,
vis-à-vis, the FIR, have found that the case cannot be said to be
involving grave and complicated question of law and fact rather the
departmental proceeding is for violation of Certified Standing Order
applicable for the workmen working under the appellant-Company
(employer) while the criminal case is for demand of gratification.
23. The issue of prejudice has also been taken as a ground that since the
investigating officer who has investigated the criminal case is also
witness to the departmental proceeding but merely because the
investigating officer has also been arrayed as witness in the
departmental proceeding, it cannot be said that prejudice will be said to
be caused particularly taking into consideration the fact that the
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
criminal case is with respect to the issue of demand of gratification
wherein the version of complainant will be of paramount importance
while in the departmental proceeding, the conduct of the present
respondent-writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration based upon
the statement recorded of the complainant vis-à-vis other witnesses.
24. Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely by taking the ground
that prejudice will be caused, is not the sufficient requirement to stay
the departmental proceeding rather the cogent reason for causing
prejudice is to be shown.
25. This Court, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law applying in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, is of the view that it is not a
case of such a nature involving grave and complicated question of law
and fact.
26. This Court, after having referred the legal issues vis-à-vis factual aspect
and adverting to the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge,
is of the view that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been taken
into consideration by the learned Single Judge and without recording
any finding to the effect that the nature of case involves grave and
complex question of law and fact, has stayed the departmental
proceeding.
27. Further, the issue of difference in departmental proceeding and the
criminal case has not been taken into consideration by the learned
Single Judge which is primarily required to come to the conclusion that
the charge in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding is
based upon the same set of facts.
Conclusion:
28. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, is of
the view that the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
suffers from error and requires interference.
2025:JHHC:12093-DB
29. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 passed in W.P.(S)
No. 1930 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.
30. In the result, the instant letters patent appeal stands allowed, as such,
disposed of.
31. Consequently, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1930 of 2024 stands
dismissed.
32. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree,
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 23/04/2025
Saurabh /A.F.R.
