- (1.) BY Court: The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of charge -sheet dated 25.7.2005 issued by the respondent no. 5.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Fitter Helper at Madhuban Colliery in August, 1990. It is stated that before his appointment there was a land dispute, with respect to which a criminal case was instituted on 29.6.1990. After trial, the said criminal case being S.T. No. 43 of 1994 was decided by order dated 25.5.2004 and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under sections 307/325/324/323 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 148 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal no. 903 of 2004 in which the prayer for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail made by the petitioner, was allowed by order dated 8.7.2004. On 30/31.7.2004 a charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner under clause 26.1.1, 26.1.19 and 26.1.20 of the Certified Standing Order of the company. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he had already intimated the authorities that he was on leave from 21.5.2004 to 28.5.2004 and he had also informed the authorities about his conviction and release on bail. An enquiry report was submitted on 30th December, 2004 holding the charges framed against the petitioner proved however, no action was taken by the respondents on the said enquiry report and another charge -sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25.7.2005 under clauses 26.1.11, 26.1.12 and 26.1.19 of the Certified Standing Order of the company. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the issuance of second charge -sheet dated 25.7.2005. A counter -affidavit has been filed in which a plea has been taken that the charges in both the charge -sheets are different. In paragraph nos. 5 and 10 the following stand has been taken by the respondents: 1997 7 SCC 514 has settled the position relating to the effect of conviction in a criminal case vis -a -vis the service of an employee and the difference between suspension of sentence and conviction. It has been held that mere admission of an appeal and suspension of sentence does not mean that the conviction gets postponed. It has been clarified that conviction continues till it is set aside by the Superior Court. It is stated that in the instant case the order of conviction has not been stayed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr. Appeal No. 903/2004 and hence the respondents are fully justified in Law to proceed against the petitioner by issuing the charge sheet dated 25/7/2005. 10. That in reply to statements made in para 17 it is stated that the charges in the two charge -sheets are distinct."
(3.) A supplementary counter -affidavit has been filed in which the details of charges in both the charge -sheets have been given, which are extracted below: "In the first charge -sheet dated 30/31.7.2004, the charges are : (a) For unauthorized absence from duties without sufficient reasons under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Orders, (b) Conviction by a Competent Court under clause 26.1.19, and (c) For violation of the Mines Act, 1952 or any Act, Rule Regulation or any Sub Rule framed thereunder or violation of the Standing Orders. In the second charge -sheet dated 25.7.2005, the charges are ; (a) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with company's business or property under clause 26.1.11, (b) Giving false information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. or concealing any fact or any other particular under clause 26.1.12, and (c) Conviction by a Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude under clause 26.1.19." ;