Arjun Kumar vs Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned letter under Memo No. 448 dated 29.07.2019, whereby and

whereunder, the respondent No.4 purported to have issued a Charge sheet against the petitioner and put him under suspension alleging misconduct

under Clause 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing Order illegally as also for quashing the entire Departmental Proceeding in relation thereto.

The short facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Mining Sardar in West Jharia (WJ) Area and vide

Memo No. 15818-26 dated 04/06.11.2008, joining of the petitioner was accepted. Thereafter, vide office order dated 10.11.2008, he was posted at WJ

Area, subject to verification of Caste Certificate etc. and as such, petitioner was directed to report to the office of Project Officer. It is specific case

of the petitioner that in the year, 2015, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Sr.-cum-Production Assistant Grade-B. On 29.06.2017, a

FIR in R.C. -6A/2017 D was registered under Sections- 120 B, 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC against as many as 9 named accused persons including

the petitioner figuring at Sl. No.7 and investigation in relation to the aforesaid case is still going on and no charge sheet has been filed. On 09.09.2019,

the petitioner made representation before the Enquiry Officer-cum-Ventilation Officer, Moonidih Colliery, requesting him to provide him the copies of

documents for the purpose of submitting his Written Statement of Defence. Thereafter, vide impugned letter dated 29.07.2019, the respondent No.4

purported to have issued a Charge sheet against the petitioner alleging misconduct under Clause 26.1.12 of the Certified Standing Order for alleged

wrongful information and concealment of facts at the time of appointment and place the petitioner under suspension. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner

made a representation before the respondent for revocation of his suspension inter-alia on the ground that other officials, being accused in the criminal

case, have not been placed under suspension except the petitioner, but no heed was paid. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door

of this Court.

Assailing the charge-sheet as well as order of suspension and also the entire departmental proceeding, Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner submits that charge-sheet is wholly misconceived and misleading. Learned counsel further submits that criminal case is still

pending, similarly situated persons have not been placed under suspension and copy of the enquiry report regarding matriculation certificate found to

be forged by the Bihar Secondary Education has not been served to him and the alleged criminal case investigated by CBI is still pending and as such,

charge-sheet is totally misconceived and misleading and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that at this stage it is not permissible for the petitioner to raise all the points, which he

would raise before the Enquiry Officer itself. Regarding suspension of other accused, the petitioner is accused on the role of BCCL whereas, others

are for employee of SECL and as such, parity cannot be done.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the argument advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law, which is totally misconceived. The petitioner instead of participating in the enquiry

has knocked the door of this Court assailing the charge-sheet, which is not acceptable to this Court and as such, grounds taken are not permissible in

the eyes of law. This Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court has held in catena of decision that pending of the criminal case, cannot be a ground for

not proceeding in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. I do not find any

infirmity or illegality on the part of the respondents. This Court cannot interfere with the charge-sheet at this stage. The petitioner is directed to appear

before the Enquiry Officer, raise all the grounds, which is available to him before him. Let it made clear that petitioner shall co-operate with the

Enquiry Officer and if he fails to do so, the Enquiry Officer is directed to proceed with the ex parte enquiry. There is no merit in the instant case.

Resultantly, writ petition merits dismissal.