S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE main plea taken by the petitioner is that the charge framed in the departmental proceeding communicated by memorandum dated 5th September, 2000 is based on same set of facts and evidence, sighted in the CBI case being R.C. No. 11A of 1999 (R).
(2.) IT is further alleged that though the petitioner was allowed the subsistence allowance @ 50% but from the subsequent year it has been brought down to 25% on the ground that the petitioner is not attending the day to day enquiry. According to the petitioner the day to day enquiry in the departmental proceeding has been fixed on such date when the date in the criminal proceeding is being fixed. For the said reason the petitioner could not attend the day to day departmental proceeding having been fixed on the same date.
(3.) MR . Banerjee, counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and relied on the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, which was also referred by the counsel for the petitioner.;