- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the C.B.I.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in connection with RC Case no. 07(A)/09 -D and for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 22.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court XIII -cum -Special Judge, CBI against the petitioners under Sections 120B, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and" Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel of the petitioner submits that so far the petitioner no. 1 namely Subir Ghosh is concerned, it has been alleged against him in the charge sheet that he signed on the Bi -annual report for the period ending June, 2008 and performance report dated 11.11.2008 and graded the performance of the ESM Company and the reports as "satisfactory" despite the fact that M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. had not adhered to the provisions of MOU which was in his knowledge and conditions prescribed by the DGR for an ESM Company. He also did not verify before signing the report which turned out to be false and fabricated during the investigation. Thus, he abused his official position in causing undue loss to BCCL, Dhanbad and undue gain to Mis Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. So far the petitioner no. 2 namely Bibhash Chandra Maji is concerned it has been alleged against him in the charge sheet that he issued errs to M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. for transportation of coal during the period from 1.4.2008 to 28.2.2009 despite knowing well that the company was not complying with the provisions of MOU and the conditions prescribed by the office of DGR. He also issued further order to the said ESM Company for coal transportation and permitted to use hired vehicles from the private transporters/parties. Thus, he abused his official position in causing undue loss to BCCL and undue gain to M/s Natraj Coal Transport (P) Ltd. So far the petitioner no. 3 namely Tarunkanti Bandyopadhyay @ Tarun Kanti Bandopadhyay is concerned, it has been alleged in the charge sheet against him that he recommended for extension of the tenure of said ESM company for another term by specifically mentioning the performance of the company as "satisfactory" in the proposal moved vide Note sheet dated 28.2.2009 despite the fact that knowing fully that M/s Natraj Transport (P) Ltd. had not submitted bi -annual reports for which letters were issued by him to the said ESM Company.
(3.) MR . Sinha has further contended that a scheme to raise Ex -Service Men (ESM) Coal Transportation Company was formulated between the erstwhile Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Defence in the year 1979 with the aim of having union free captive transport organization in the coal subsidiaries and providing an opportunity to ex -service men for resettlement. The scheme had been successful and mutually beneficial to both the parties. Though instructions/guidelines existed on formation of running of ex -service men coal transportation companies, the terms and conditions governing formation of these companies were revised by the Director General of Resettlement and Coal India Limited and a memorandum of understanding was executed on 16.4.1999, which is in vogue till date. The said MOU dated 16.4.1999 is annexed with the petition as Annexure -3.;