(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 22.04.2015, by which, the respondents initiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and for direction upon the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and also prayed that during pendency of the writ application, order dated 22.04.2015 be stayed.
(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that petitioner while working on the post of Special Grade Clerk/Bill Clerk in Munidih Coal Washery, BCCL Dhanbad, on the complaint made by Niranjan Mahto, in a trap case he was caught red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 500.00 as a motive for preparing/processing arrears of pay consequent upon promotion of the complainant. Pursuant thereto, F.I.R. No. 8/C 10(A)/2014-D dated 08.09.2014 under Sec. 7 of the P.C Act was instituted against the petitioner and thereafter charge-sheet was submitted by the C.B.I on 07.11.2014 under Sec. 7, 13/2 read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Thereafter, vide order dated 22.04.2015, it was proposed to hold enquiry against the petitioner on the same set of charge and direction was given to the petitioner to submit reply in his defence within 15 days, to which, he replied.
(3.) Learned senior counsel for petitioner submitted that the complainant has a previous grudge and enmity, hence, a drama for trapping the petitioner was made and there is no question of demanding money as bribe for preparing arrear bill, as the same was already prepared by the BCCL Headquarter, which fact finds support from the deposition of witness-Tarkeshwar Singh. Since, the bills of 125 employees were to be prepared manually, so it consumed some time but the complainant wanted to get his bill separated, which the petitioner denied, resulting into cooking of a drama against the petitioner. Furthermore, in the deposition of In- Charge of that section, he deposed that there was no complaint against the petitioner except this. On the ground of parity, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of one A.K. Hazare, the disciplinary authority kept the proceeding in abeyance till the final outcome of criminal case. Likewise, in the case of Keshav Singh Yadav and Arun Kumar Singh, direction has been issued vide order dated 17.06.2015 in W.P. (S) No. 587 of 2015 that the departmental proceeding may continue against the petitioner but in both cases no final order may be passed against them. It has further been submitted that since there is every chance of conclusion of departmental proceeding before disposal of criminal case and in that case the petitioner will be forced to disclose all his defence which will be prejudicial to the interest of criminal justice. Hence, demand of principle justice and fair play would be met if the respondents be restrained from proceeding further against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding as on the same set of chare criminal case is pending.