Brijendra Kumar Dwivedi vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 7417 MP

                         1
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                  ON THE 19th OF MAY, 2022

            WRIT PETITION No. 10152 of 2022

     Between:-
     BRIJENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O SHRI
     CHHOTELAL DWIVEDI , AGED ABOUT 57
     YEAR S, OCCUPATION: CLERK GRADE II
     SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
     DHANPURI OPEN CASTE MINE POST
     OFFICE SANJAY KOYLA NAGAR DISTRICT
     ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                              .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI
     H.SINGH, ADVOCATE)

     AND

1.   SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
     THROUGH      ITS   CHAIRMAN  CUM
     MANAGING DIRECTOR SEEPAT ROAD
     BILASPUR C.G. (CHHATTISGARH)

2.   THE   DIRECTOR      (PERSONNEL) SOUTH
     EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. SEEPAT ROAD
     BILASPUR (C.G.) (CHHATTISGARH)

3.   THE   GENERAL    MANAGER     SOUTH
     EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. SOHAGPUR
     AREA POST OFFICE DHANPURI DISTRICT
     SHAHDOL M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   THE SUB AREA MANAGER SOUTH
     EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. DHANPURI
     OPEN CAST MINE POST OFFICE DHANPURI
     DISTRICT  SHAHDOL M.P (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

5.   THE     COLLIERY    MANAGER SOUTH
     EASTERN COAL FIELD LTD. DHANPURI
     OPEN CAST MINE POST OFFICE DHANPURI
     DISTRICT   SHAHDOL M.P (MADHYA
                               2
       PRADESH)

                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
       (BY MS.SHIKHA SHARMA, PANEL LAWYER)

      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                               ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

By this petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 13/06/2021 (Annexure-P-12), whereby a memo was issued by respondent no.5 to appoint an Inquiry Officer and representative of management, so as to initiate enquiry against the petitioner in pursuance to the charge-sheet issued to him.

Counsel for the petitioner prayed for appropriate direction to the respondents to postpone the proceedings of domestic enquiry till finalization of criminal case pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanpuri, in pursuance to the FIR registered against the petitioner for the same charges for which charge sheet has been issued. As per the petitioner, the allegations made in the domestic enquiry and the criminal trial are same and if domestic enquiry is permitted to be continued, the petitioner will be prejudiced in his defence as the same has to be disclosed in domestic enquiry.

By relying upon a decision in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and another reported

in 1993(3) SCC 679, counsel for the petitioner prayed to stay the proceedings of departmental enquiry till the decision in the criminal trial.

However, I am not convinced with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the Supreme Court in number of occasion has opined that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar. Recently, the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5848/2021 (Union of India and others Vs. Dalbeer Singh) has held that the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects and both can go on simultaneously. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Writ Appeal 324/2022 (Binod Kumar Mandal Vs. Sough Eastern Coalfields Limited and others) has also taken same view ever after considering the case of M.Paul Anthony (supra). Recently, in Writ Petition 3622/2022 (Jaypal Singh Rathore and others Vs. The State of M.P and others) this Court has also taken the same view.

Considering the judgment passed Binod Kumar Mandal (supra) in which the Division Bench has also distinguished the case

of M.Paul Anthony (supra) on the basis of facts involved therein, I do not find any reason to take a different view than that of

Division Bench and also of the Supreme Court.

Thus, the petition being without any substance, is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) V. JUDGE sushma

SUSHMA KUSHWAHA 2022.05.25 13:21:06 +05'30'