Jharkhand High Court
Shree Ram Kumar vs M/S Bharat Cocking Coal Limited Through ... on 25 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:25436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 386 of 2020
.........
Shree Ram Kumar, aged about 26 years, S/o
Tarkeshwar Ram, R/o village-near Durga Mandir Mines
Rescue Station, Bera, P.O.+P.S. Dhanbsar, District-
Dhanbad. ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Cocking Coal Limited through its
C.M.D., Koila Bhawan, P.O. + P.S. Saraidhela, District
Dhanbad.
2. The Additional General Manager of M/s B.C.C.L.,
Bastacolla Area, P.O. + P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad.
3. The Manager (P&IR), of M/s B.C.C.L., Koila
Bhawan, P.O. + P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
4. The Project Officer, Salanpur Colliery of M/s
B.C.C.L., Katras Area, P.O. + P.S. Katras, District
Dhanbad.
5. The Senior Manager (Mining) cum-Enquiry
Officer, Katras Area of M/s. B.C.C.L, P.O.+ P.S. Katras,
District-Dhanbad. ..... Respondents
.........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
.......
For the Petitioner : Mr. M.B.Lal, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Adv
.........
C.A.V. ON 09/07/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 25 /08/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated
3/4.10.2019; whereby the respondents started the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner; further for the stay
2025:JHHC:25436
of the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the
petitioner, inasmuch as, for the same set of charge; one R.C
Case No. 3 (A)/ 2019 (D) is pending for trial before the Special
Judge, CBI-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that for these self-
charges; a criminal case is pending and the departmental
proceeding cannot be permitted to continue.
4. Law in this regard is well settled. In the case of Capt. M.
Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in para 22 of the said judgment has held as
under:-
"22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this
Court referred to above are:
(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.
(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."
(1999) 3 SCC 679
2025:JHHC:25436
5. Further, in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
v. T. Srinivas2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para
10 as under.:-
"10. From the above, it is clear that the advisability, desirability or
propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to
be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and
circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of
departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of
course."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet anpother case of
Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. v. Girish V.,3 as reported in,
especially at paragraph no. 16, has held as under:-
"16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to then 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."
7. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned;
the petitioner admittedly had confessed his guilt and pointed
out that on the relevant date and time of the occurrence, he
received bribe money on behalf of the main accused and
thereby accepted the illegal gratification on his behalf Rs.
30,000/- and thus was granted pardon under section 306 of
(2004) 7 SCC 442
(2014) 3 SCC 636
2025:JHHC:25436
the Code of Criminal Procedure and has become the
prosecution witness. Thus, no trial qua the petitioner is
pending and in this view of the fact, there is no justification for
grant of any stay with respect to the departmental processing;
and as such the instant writ application is wholly misconceived,
devoid of any merit and thus is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.
Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
A.F.R
