JUDGMENT :

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 92 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with order dated 06.08.2019, by which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and further refused to stay departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019.

3. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under:

The writ petitioner was appointed as Accounts Trainee in regular establishment of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited (in short ‘B.C.C.L.') vide order dated 18.11.1987. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner joined the said post on 19.11.1987 and from time to time he was promoted and vide order dated 19.05.2014, he was promoted from the post of Senior Cashier to Chief Cashier.

While working as such, a written report was lodged against the petitioner before the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short ‘C.B.I.’) stating therein that the petitioner demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) from the complainant for processing pending claim of yearly/quarterly bonus, leave encashment, pay, arrear etc. as due to him, based upon which, the C.B.I. registered a case being R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2019(D) for the alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, the investigating agency-C.B.I submitted charge-sheet against the writ petitioner-appellant for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In the meantime, the management of the respondents-BCCL had also proposed to hold an inquiry against the writ petitioner, as such written statement of defence was called for from him vide order dated 05.07.2019, to which, he replied vide letter dated 16.07.2019 but the respondents-Management being dissatisfied with the reply so furnished by the writ petitioner decided to conduct departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019.

Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner moved before this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 92 of 2020 by invoking power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 06.08.2019, by which departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and further during pendency of the departmental proceeding to keep in abeyance the departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019, on the ground that on the similar set of charges one criminal case, being R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2019(D) is pending.

According to writ petitioner, the documents as well as the witnesses are more or less same in the both the proceedings. It was further contended that the two proceeding of similar nature cannot run simultaneously.

The respondents-BCCL appeared before the writ Court and referring to the judgment in Om Prakash Prasad Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. [2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 2178] submitted that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected.

The writ Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and putting reliance upon certain judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 24.07.2020, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the respondents-B.C.C.L and perused the documents available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner by relying upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court has submitted that in a case where criminal case is going o