M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THE only question involved in this writ application is as to whether it is a fit case where a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner should be stayed till disposal of the criminal proceeding initiated against him.
(2.) THE petitioner is a permanent employee of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and he has been working on the post of Sr. Overman at Basantimata Colliery under Charch Victoria Area of M/s. BCCL. The petitioners case is that he is the Secretary of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union and represents the genuine cause of the workmen. On 11.12.1998 a first information was lodged by the respondent No. 4 the agent of Basantimata Colliery against Mongol Gorain and others including the petitioner for the offence committed under Sections 147, 149, 323, 352, 337, 325 and 379, IPC being Nirsa P.S. Case No. 274/98 alleging, inter alia, that on 11.12.1998 the workers union called strike and the accused -persons alongwith villagers stopped the employees from going to perform their duty. Mangal Gorain and others snatched away cap lamp of workmen, Raghunath Rai and assaulted him. When CISF personnel reached there the accused -persons fled away. The supporters of Band completely paralysed the work. On 12th December, 1998 the respondent No. 4 issued charge -sheet against the petitioner alleging that on 11.12.1998 he came to the colliery and did not mark his attendance. The petitioner alongwith other strikers obstructed the willing worker to attend their duty on the way to colliery. On 18.1.1999 an enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer. On receipt of the information the petitioner submitted an application to postponed the enquiry proceeding till finalisation of the criminal case, since his disclosure of defence in domestic enquiry will highly prejudice him. It is stated that the enquiry officer instead of stopping the enquiry proceeding repeatedly fixed date for holding enquiry and is not staying the proceeding till the disposal of the criminal case. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that the object in the criminal proceeding and the disciplinary proceeding is altogether distinct and different. The question involved in the disciplinary proceeding is to find out whether the workman is guilty of misconduct, whereas in criminal proceeding the petitioner has been prosecuted for committing offence under the penal code.
(3.) I have heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent -BCCL.;