- (1.) HEARD the parties finally.
(2.) THE only grievance of the petitioner is that after his acquittal in the criminal case his request to reconsider the punishment has been rejected on the ground that the same cannot be considered. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that for the selfsame charges a departmental proceeding was initiated and a criminal case was also instituted. The Enquiry Officer found that there was no direct evidence against the petitioner but the circumstantial evidence and the logical movement of the events speak volumes against the petitioner and that leads a needle of suspicion towards him. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the said enquiry report dismissed the petitioner. The appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, by judgment dated 20.12.2005, passed in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2001, petitioner was acquitted after full dress trial. Therefore, in view of the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129, G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Others petitioner's case may be reconsidered. It appears that the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal cases were similar. The witnesses produced on behalf of the management, before the Enquiry Officer, were also examined in the criminal case. In view of the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner, the matter can be reconsidered by the appellate authority.
(3.) IN the circumstances, petitioner is given liberty lo make a fresh representation before the Appellate Authority -Director Personnel, Central Coalfield Ltd., Ranchi (respondent No.2) who will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.;