GAYA SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the departmental proceedings initiated vide charge-sheet No. BBCL: EE: X: C: 35(2): 87: 257 dated 2/05/1988, followed by charge-sheet No. BCCL: EE: X: C: 35(2): 87: 894 dated 25/11/1993 and the consequential letter No. BCCL: ENQ; SK & GAY A: 2002:1263 dated August 2, 2002. The The sole ground taken to challenge the proceeding is 'delay' and that for similar charge for which criminal case was lodged, no case having been (sic) made out, the criminal case was dropped.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was suspended vide an Order No. BCCL: EE: X: C: 35: 87: 85 dated 9/02/1988. It was followed by initiation of an enquiry, vide charge-sheet No. BCCL: EE: X: C: 35(2): 87:257 dated 2/05/1988. The main allegation was that a number of Casual Wagon Loaders made applications for payment of LTC/LLTC twice for the same Block Year: 1983-1986 and were paid during the petitioner's posting. It was alleged negligence in performance of duty; an act prejudicial to the interest of the Company, with further allegation that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty. The petitioner submitted show-cause reply and also requested to withdraw the suspension order. The suspension order was withdrawn on 12/11/1988, but enquiry continued. No progress made in the enquiry for more than a year. On the other hand, the Enquiry Officer, vide letter dated April 18/19, 1989 informed that the charge-sheet has been kept in abeyance by the order of the disciplinary authority, For the same set ot allegation/ charges, FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others by the CBI. A criminal case being R.C/12 (A) 190(D) was instituted before the Special Judge, CBI Dhanbad under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 of IPC and Section 3(2) read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After thorough investigation, the CBI submitted final form stating that the allegation against the accused persons, including petitioner, could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, in absence of sufficient evidence. The learned Court of Special Judge, CBI Dhanbad accepted the final form and discharged the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, vide order dated 26/04/1994.

(3.) For more than six years, in spite of initiation of depa1rtmental proceeding and no prohibitory order from any Court of law, the same was kept in abeyance. The said departmental proceeding initiated on 2/05/1988 was not dropped. Without any final order in the first departmental proceeding, for same set of charge, the second charge-sheet issued on 25/11/1993.