Jharkhand High Court

Akhilesh Kumar Pingle vs Central Coalfields Limited on 24 November, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                               2025:JHHC:34968




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P.(S) No.256 of 2017
                           -------

Akhilesh Kumar Pingle, son of Sri Sukhdeo Mahto, resident of Village - Chamrom, P.O. - Harhadkandar, P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh (Jharkhand).

                                         ...    Petitioner
                           Versus

1. Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. having its Registered Office at Darbhanga House. P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

2. The General Manager (L&R), Central Coalfields Limited, having his office at Darbhanga House, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

3. The Staff Officer (P&A) (BS)/Enquiry Officer, Barka Sayal Area of Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Sayal 'D', P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh.

4. The General Manager, Rajrappa Area of Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh. .........Respondents with

-------

Smt. Sulekha Kumari, wife of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Pingle, resident of Village - Chamrom, P.O. Harhadkandar, P.S. - Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh (Jharkhand).

... Petitioner Versus

2. The Chief Manager (Geology), Central Coalfields Limited, having his office at Darbhanga House, P.O. Darbhanga House, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

3. The Staff Officer (P&A) (BS)/Enquiry Officer, Barka Sayal Area of Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Sayal 'D', P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh.

2025:JHHC:34968

4. The General Manager, Rajrappa Area of Central Coalfields Ltd., P.O. Rajrappa Project, P.S. Rajrappa, District - Ramgarh. .........Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondents: Mr. Anop Kurmar Mehta, Adv.

-------

CAV ON:10.09.2025 Pronounced On:-24/11/2025

Since both these writ applications involved

common question of law accordingly both were heard

together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. In WP(S) No. 256 of 2017, the petitioner has

prayed for following reliefs:-

(i) For quashing the Charge-sheet contained in letter no. Rev/16/2541-50 dated 1.8.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5);

whereby the said Disciplinary Authority has served charges in respect of the same charges for which the petitioner was issue another charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet bearing Ref. No. GM(R)/Pers./CS/2015-1932 dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-2) which was finally withdrawn after completing the entire departmental proceedings vide letter bearing Ref. No. GM(R)/Pers./CS/2016-415 dated 22.6.2016 (Annexure-4) and therefore the subsequent initiation departmental proceeding is illegal and bad;

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for a

2025:JHHC:34968

direction upon the Respondents No. 2 and 3 for staying the departmental enquiry pursuant to the Charge-sheet No. Rev/16/2541-50 dated 1.8.2016 (Annexure-5) as a criminal case being Case No. RC-11(A)/2015-R dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure-1), based on the same set of facts involving complicated questions of fact and law, is pending trial;

3. In WPS number 261 of 2017, the petitioner

has prayed for following reliefs.

(i) For quashing the Charge-sheet contained in letter no.

CCL/Geology/Chargesheet/NEE/2016/149 dated 29.7.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5); whereby the said Disciplinary Authority has served charges in respect of the same charges for which the petitioner was issue another charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet bearing Ref. No. GM(R)/Pers./ CS/2015-1933 dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure-2) which was finally withdrawn after completing the entire departmental proceedings vide letter bearing Ref. No. GM(R)/Pers./CS/2016-414 dated 22.6.2016 (Annexure-4) and therefore the subsequent initiation of the de-novo departmental proceeding is illegal and bad;

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for a direction upon the Respondents No. 2 and 3 for staying the departmental enquiry pursuant to the Charge-sheet No. CCL/Geology/Disp. Action/NEE/2016/149 dated 29.7.2016 (Annexure-5) as a criminal case being Case No.

2025:JHHC:34968

RC-11(A)/2015-R dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure-

1), based on the same set of facts involving complicated questions of fact and law, is pending trial;

4. Briefly stated, in both these writ applications,

charge-sheet was issued by the respondent-coal

company, which was subsequently withdrawn, and a

fresh charge-sheet for the same charges were issued to

the writ petitioners. The respective petitioners have

challenged the initiation of second charge-sheet on the

ground that second charge-sheet is not permissible for

the same set charges when the first charge-sheet was

withdrawn Suo-motu and that too after full-fledged

inquiry and only before issuance of final order in the

disciplinary proceeding.

For brevity, the facts of WPS No. 256 of 2017 is

being relied upon.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respective Petitioner

summits that after initiation of the second disciplinary

proceeding by issuing second charge-sheet, the

Petitioners moved before this Court in the above referred

writ applications and this Court has stayed the

disciplinary proceeding.

6. The case was heard on several occasions and

on 11th August 2025, this Court has framed following

questions of law for consideration.

2025:JHHC:34968

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent-coal company was justified in issuing the second charge-sheet for the same and similar charge what was withdrawn by them without assigning any reason.

(ii) Whether continuation of the proceeding initiated by the second charge-sheet is maintainable only due to the fact that the charge is same and similar with that of first charge which was withdrawn by them by ordering de novo enquiry.

(iii) Whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 3192 of 2019 with analogous cases wherein it has been dealt in detail on what basis the disciplinary proceeding should await till conclusion of criminal trial.

7. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Ld. Counsel representing

the Petitioner in both cases summits that second charge-

sheet for holding de-novo inquiry for same charge is not

sustainable in absence of any revisionary power. The

first charge-sheet was withdrawn without any liberty or

an observation to initiate second charge-sheet, and it

was a simpliciter withdrawal. The fresh enquiry

pursuant to the second chargesheet would prejudice the

petitioner which is nothing but harassment and as such

causes serious prejudice to the petitioner and, virtually it

is a sort of double jeopardy.

2025:JHHC:34968

Learned counsel further contended that once a

charge-sheet is withdrawn, it amounts to withdrawing

the charges set up by the same charge-sheet, and the

denovo inquiry for the same charges would amount to

reopening the closed issue for which there does not

appear to be any provision.

Learned counsel made an alternative prayer

that since the charge relates to fraud for which a

criminal case is also instituted; as such, at least the

disciplinary proceeding be not pursue till the disposal of

criminal case.

8. Mr. Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents

submits that the first charge-sheet was withdrawn in

order to remove the technical defect in the earlier

proceeding, inasmuch as, since it was detected that the

petitioner was working in Land and Revenue Department

at CCL headquarter, the appropriate disciplinary

authority for initiation of departmental proceeding as per

the standing orders was the head of the department,

Land and Revenue, CCL Ranchi and not General

Manager, Rajrappa and it is only to rectify the said

technical defect, the charge-sheet was withdrawn and a

fresh charge-sheet was issued by appropriate

disciplinary authority.

2025:JHHC:34968

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and after going through the documents available on

record, it appears that on 22/12/2015, a charge-sheet

was issued to the petitioner. For brevity, the same is

extracted herein below:-

"Whereas you have been appointed under land loser scheme. As per the terms & conditions of the appointment letter offered to you, your service/employment is liable to be terminated at any time without any information relating to your claim for employment, if relationship, educational qualification, technical qualification etc. are found to be incorrect found by the company.

Now, it has been reported that your relationship with the land owners are incorrect/false and you have obtained the employment fraudulently."

10. Thereafter, on 22/6/16, a letter was issued to

the petitioner as under:

"A charge sheet vide Ref. No.GM(R)/Pers/CS/2015- 1932 dated 22-12-2015 issued to you is hereby withdrawn."

11. Just after a month, a fresh charge sheet was

issued to the petitioner, (Annexure-5) of WP(S) 256/17.

For brevity, the same is extracted herein below:-

"That against acquisition of certain land Vide SO No.3894 dated 22/12/1962 under Khata No. 7/2 Plot 215.216 & 219 at Village Hutungdag, belonging to Late Ghanaram Mahto under the Coal Bearing Areas acquisition & Development) Act, 1957, you by advertently suppressing material fact that you did not belong to the family of the land loser, fraudulently obtained employment in the Company under package

2025:JHHC:34968

deal of 24 acres of land le appointment Letter Ref. No.PD/MP/Aptt/LL/L-99 dated 22.04.2015 by falsely projecting yourself as wife of Sri Kamlesh K. Pingle (as mentioned in the genealogical table) a family member of the land loser by producing a totally false and incorrect genealogical table. You thus played fraud upon the Company and managed to secure the employment for which you were not legally entitled for as per the Company's norms as laid down in Rehabilitation $ Resettlement Scheme 2012"

The above acts of omission and commission on your part, if proved, would amount to misconduct in terms of Clause Nos. 26,1 and 26.9 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company applicable to you which are as under:

26.1 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with employer's business or property.

29.9 Giving false information regarding one's name, age, father's name, qualifications etc. in with his employment.

12. By going through the two charge-sheet;

admittedly, the crux of the charges are same and similar

inasmuch as, the charge was of getting employment

fraudulently by giving false information with regard to

relationship with the original landowner. Though in the

second charge-sheet, the detail clauses of the certified

standing orders of the company were mentioned, but

nonetheless, the crux of the charge was one and the

same for which criminal case was also lodged against

these petitioners and the same is still pending.

13. Even Ld. Counsel for the Respondents have

admitted the fact that the charges in the first charge-

2025:JHHC:34968

sheet as well as the subsequent charge-sheet which is

impugned herein were same and similar. However, from

perusal of record, it appears that the first charge-sheet

was issued by the General Manager Rajrappa Area on

22.12.2015 for the alleged irregularities and the reply

having been found not satisfactory, inquiry was also

conducted in accordance with the provisions laid down

in the standing orders of the company. However, before

conclusion of departmental proceedings, it was detected

that though the Petitioner was working in Land and

Revenue Department at CCL headquarters, the

appropriate disciplinary authority for initiation of

departmental proceedings as per the standing orders was

the head of the Department, Land and Revenue, CCL

Ranchi, and not the General Manager at Rajrappa.

14. Accordingly, in order to rectify the said

technical defects, the charge-sheet was withdrawn and

fresh charge-sheet was issued to the respective

Petitioners by the appropriate authority. In other words,

it is evident that the subsequent charge-

sheet/disciplinary proceeding was initiated in order to

remove the technical defect in the earlier proceeding

which in the eye of this Court, is fair and not improper.

15. In this regard, reference may be made to the

case of State of Assam & Anr. Vs. J.N.Roy Biswas

2025:JHHC:34968

reported in (1976) 1 SCC 234, wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court has dealt similar issue. Relevant part of the

Hon'ble Apex Court order is extracted hereinbelow:

"4. We may, however, make it clear that no government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or other, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot be launched............."

16. Though the aforesaid case was decided in favor

of the employee for the reason that in the said case the

employee was reinstated; however, in the instant case no

final decision was taken.

In this factual background, this Court is of the

firm view that due to some technical error or procedural,

the delinquent should not be benefited; as such, so far

as the first and second question of law, this Court holds

that the Respondent Coal Company was justified in

issuing second charge-sheet for the same and similar

charge, what was withdrawn by them. This conclusion is

supported by the time of withdrawal of the first charge-

sheet which was dated 22-6-2016 and initiation of

second charge-sheet dated 29-7-2016. As such, the

stand of the Respondent appears to be fair and proper.

17. So far as question No.III, mentioned in order

dated 11th August 2025 is concerned coupled with the

alternative prayer of the Petitioners to stay the

disciplinary proceedings till conclusion of the criminal

case; after going through the entire facts of the case, it

2025:JHHC:34968

appears that the issue involved in the instant case, i.e.

whether the disciplinary proceeding should wait till

conclusion of criminal trial is squarely covered by the

order passed by this court in WPS No.3192 of 2019

with analogous cases wherein this court has held in

paragraph Nos.9-12 as under; -

9. Thus, in these cases, two issues are necessary to scrutinize in the backdrop of the allegation being identical as the departmental proceeding and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts; as to whether there is any complicated question of law and fact, and whether there is any huge delay in conclusion of the criminal trial and as to whether there is any hope of early disposal of the respective criminal cases.

10. At this stage, it would be desirable to understand what is the question of fact, what is the question of law, and what is the mixed question of law and fact, and what are complicated matters.

Questions of Fact:

• These concern what actually happened in a case.

• They involve evidence gathering to establish events, actions, and circumstances.

• Examples include: Did a party sign a contract? Was someone speeding? What was the intention behind a specific action?

2025:JHHC:34968

• Complicated questions of fact might involve conflicting witness testimonies, complex financial transactions, or technical details requiring expert analysis. Questions of Law:

• These involve interpreting and applying legal rules, statutes, and precedents. • They determine how the law applies to the established facts.

• Examples include: Is a contract legally enforceable? What is the correct interpretation of a specific law? What is the appropriate legal standard to apply? • Complicated questions of law might involve novel legal issues, unclear or conflicting legal precedents, or the application of complex legal doctrines. Mixed Questions of Law and Fact: • Many cases involve both intricate factual disputes and challenging legal interpretations.

• These are known as mixed questions of law and fact.

• The court must first determine the facts and then decide how the law applies to those facts, • For example, in a negligence case, the court must determine if a party acted carelessly (question of fact) and if that carelessness constitutes negligence under the law (question of law).

Complicated Matters:

2025:JHHC:34968

• When a case involves both intricate factual disputes and challenging legal interpretations, it is considered to involve "complicated questions of fact and law". • This means the court needs to address both the factual aspects and the legal aspects in a complex manner.

• Such matters often require extensive evidence, expert testimony, and detailed legal analysis.

• Examples include cases involving intellectual property disputes, complex business transactions, or cases with significant constitutional law implications. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether these cases involve complicated/mixed question of fact and law or not. This Court is of the view that the charge may be grave, but it is not complicated and it is not such type of cases where several numbers of witnesses are to be examined. In all these cases, as aforesaid, the documents to be relied upon by the prosecution in the criminal case are also similar what has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority. As aforesaid, since the Respondents were granted liberty to proceed in the disciplinary proceeding, they proceeded and only final order is to be passed as claimed by them. Thus, there seems to be no prejudice to the respective petitioners

11. Further, when the number of witnesses in the criminal case is not so huge and all the witnesses of the disciplinary proceedings are

2025:JHHC:34968

also witness in the criminal case; and the matters does not require extensive evidence, expert testimony, and/or detailed legal analysis; the present set of cases cannot be termed to be a one involving complicated question of law and fact, inasmuch as, in the present set of cases there can't be intricate factual disputes which will require legal interpretations. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that these set of cases cannot be termed as a case involving complicated question of fact and law.

12. At the cost of repetition, in the disciplinary proceeding the common witnesses have been examined or about to be examined, as the case may be, then as per sub-para (v) of para 22 of Paul Anthony judgment(supra) the pendency of criminal case is of much importance. In the present set of cases; in W.P.(S) no. 587/2015 & W.P.(S) no. 395/2015, even charge sheet by the C.B.I. has been subinitted on 30.05.2014 i.e. more than 11 years ago and there is no chance of early conclusion of trial.

Even in W.P.(S) no. 3192/2019 & W.P.(S) по. 2944/2019 the chargesheet has been submitted by the C.B.I. on 26.03.2018 & in W.P.(S) no. 1989/2021, it has been submitted on 29.06.20. Thus, even in the latest case chargesheet has been submitted five years before and there is no chance of early conclusion of trial.

Thus, it is evident from record that after a lapse of so many years, the trial is still pending

2025:JHHC:34968

and there is no hope of early conclusion of trail. As a matter of fact, during pendency of the writ application, the Petitioner of WPS No. 395 of 2015 has already superannuated. Therefore, taking a clue from sub-para (v) of para-22 of Paul Anthony judgment, this Court is of the view that even if the departmental proceeding was stayed on account of pendency of criminal case, the same requires a logical conclusion.

18. In the instant case also, it is not a complicated

question of fact and law and merely number of witnesses

being 28 does not mean that it's a complicated question

of law and/or mixed question of fact and law.

Accordingly, this court holds that the disciplinary

proceeding should continue because there is no chance

of early hearing of the case.

19. Accordingly, all the questions of law are

decided in favour of the Respondent Coal Company. As

such, the stay granted by this court vide order dated

14.02.2017 in W.P.S. No. 256 of 2017 & order dated

14.02.2017 in W.P.S. No. 261 of 2017 stands vacated