Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner herein has sought a direction upon the respondents not to proceed in a departmental proceeding initiated against him vide memorandum dated 17th October 2012 by the Chairman -cum -Managing Director -cum -Disciplinary Authority, Central Coalfields Limited (Respondent No. 2) during the pendency of the criminal case lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the identical facts. The petitioner has been proceeded against for the alleged misconduct under two articles of charges as shown in the charge sheet at annexure -1. The first article of charge is that the petitioner while posted as General Manager (Mining) and functioning as Area General Manager, Dhori Area during the year 2010 -11, committed gross irregularity in the matter of maintenance of physical coal stock at the places indicated therein. During course of surprise check in presence of representative of Vigilance Department and Survey Personnel drawn from different areas and CCL Headquarter from 04th January 2011 to 7th January 2011 and from 11th January 2011 to 16th January 2011 in the presence of respective area officials, abnormal shortage of coal stock was revealed. The shortage was found upon surprise check of the respective book stocks and physical stock of coal found on measurement as indicated in the chart. Coal stock shortage at Amlo Project was to the tune of 60.44%; at SDQ -3(Tarmi) Project, 66.54% and at SDQ -1(Kalyani) Projects, the shortage was 44.27%. Such shortage was substantially beyond the permissible limit of + 5% as fixed by the company. In the second articles of charges, it has been alleged that the petitioner being the Area General Manager, was responsible for updation of the monthly coal face measurement register and coal stock maintenance register after September 2010, as per Code for Uniform System of Maintenance, Control and Verification of Coal Stock in all Mines of CIL (known as Yellow Book) in respect of the aforesaid projects falling under his administrative jurisdiction. Since he did not ensure the aforesaid monthly updation and check any abnormal shortage in physical stock of coal, these irregularities has been committed in league with the other officials responsible for maintenance of coal stock. The aforesaid acts of omission and commission amounted to non -fulfillment of duties and obligations prescribed under rules 4.1 (I), 4.1(ii), 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, as amended up to April 2000, as also tantamount to misconduct under 5.0 (5), 5.0(6), 5.0(9) & 5.0(26) under the said rules. The FIR at annexure -3 was instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation being RC 10(A)/2012(D) registered under section 120B and 409 IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that these FIRs' have been instituted for different areas. Perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegations of criminal conspiracy have been made against the accused persons including the petitioner and other officials of dishonestly misappropriating the amount of coal over which they had dominion, causing wrongful loss to the coal company and corresponding wrongful gain for themselves. Article of charges in the departmental proceedings therefore indicate dereliction of official duty on the part of the petitioner in the maintenance of the monthly coal face measurement register and coal stock measurement register as also failure to follow the yellow book. These allegations contained in the two articles of charges therefore point out to the incidences of lapses of duty on the part of the petitioner which amounts to misconduct under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. The allegation in the FIR, on the other hand, relate to the criminal conspiracy and acts of dishonest misappropriation of the alleged quantity of coal which has caused loss to the company. The element of mens rea has to be established in the matter of criminal prosecution to bring home charges beyond all reasonable doubt. However, allegations in the departmental proceeding are definitely related to dereliction of official duty and will not, in any way, prejudice the case of the petitioner if the same are continued despite institution of the criminal case.;