JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In the instant case, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 07.04.2020, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case being R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2014(D) has been rejected by the respondents by stating that the criminal case registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent-BCCL is entirely different and the judgment of the criminal case is not binding on the domestic enquiry.

Factual Matrix:

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was a Bill Clerk in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (for short “M/s. BCCL”). While he was discharging his duties, a written complaint was made to the CBI, Dhanbad on 08.09.2014 by one Niranjan Mahto, a fitter in Moonidih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL alleging that the petitioner has made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- for preparing his arrear bill of Rs. 25,000/-. Based on the above complaint, the CBI Dhanbad lodged an FIR being R.C. Case No. 10(A)/2014(D) on 08.09.2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. Thereafter, the CBI Dhanbad constituted a trap team and the petitioner was trapped and arrested on 09.09.2014. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 07.11.2014 under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly criminal trial commenced against the petitioner. After submission of charge-sheet in the criminal case, the respondent-BCCL on the departmental side issued a memorandum of charge on 22.04.2015 and the charges contained therein were exactly the same to the charges contained in the charge-sheet of pending criminal case. The departmental proceeding culminated in an order dated 20.04.2017 by which the respondent-BCCL imposed a penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the respondent-BCCL.

On the other hand, after passing of the dismissal order in the departmental proceeding, the criminal trial against the petitioner concluded in his acquittal from the charges by a detailed judgment dated 29.02.2020, passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad. In view of his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondent-BCCL for reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits but the same was rejected on 07.04.2020 by stating that the criminal case registered by the CBI and the departmental enquiry conducted by the respondent-BCCL is entirely different and the judgment of the criminal case is not binding on the domestic enquiry.

The petitioner has therefore filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 07.04.2020 whereby his prayer for reinstatement with all consequential benefits has been rejected by the respondent-BCCL.

Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

4. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the petitioner has been dismissed from his service pursuant to a departmental proceeding on the alleged charge of making illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. Learned counsel submits that the criminal case which was initiated prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding, on the same set of charge, has culminated into honorable acquittal of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner deserves to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel submits that the grounds taken by the respondent-BCCL in their counter-affidavit is diametrically opposite to the records of the case. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have primarily stated that the evidences led before the departmental proceeding by the employer i.e. oral and documentary are not the same and similar set of evidence to that in the criminal proceedings. Further, the respondents have