An acquittal based on a benefit of doubt does not equate to an honourable acquittal necessary for reinstatement following a disciplinary action.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, through W.P.(C) No.17035 of 2016, seeks to challenge the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.12.2014 passed by Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. as well as order of Appellate Authority dated 30.08.2016 passed by Board of Directors, Coal India Ltd. Kolkata whereby the major punishment of removal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner for he was prosecuted by the CBI under Section-7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 confirmed by the Appellate Authority and inter-alia prays for reinstatement in service with back salaries and other consequential service benefits. Further, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18538 of 2021 has made a prayer to quash the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the General Manager (Personnel, Coal India Limited rejecting his representation for reinstatement.

2. In the meantime, the criminal charges are not proved and the High Court of Jharkhand vide Criminal Appeal (SJ) 138/2019 acquitted the petitioner. But, the General Manager (Personnel), Coal India Limited vide order dated 09.04.21 refused to reinstate the petitioner, which is impugned in the writ petition.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Officer under Coal India Ltd. on 23.12.2006 and posted at BCCL (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd) Dhanbad. During his tenure, he was implicated in a CBI entrapment case due to allegations of soliciting a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of processing a tender file and subsequently, faced legal prosecution.

(ii) During pendency of the criminal prosecution, on 26.03.2013, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL, issued memorandum of charges under Rule-29 of conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Ltd for committing grave misconduct by demanding a bribe, failing to maintain absolute integrity, and failing to show devotion to duty, under Rule 4.1 , 5.1 of CDA Rules. Accordingly, he was asked to submit written statement of defence.

(iii) After a delay of one year of suspension and reinstatement; on 26.3.2013, he was eventually charged by the CMD, BCCL to face the proceeding.

(iv) In response to memorandum of charges the petitioner submitted the written defence on 10.04.13 denying the charges and allegation made against him.

(v) Being dissatisfied with the written defence, the Disciplinary Authority, Chairman-cum-M.D Coal India Ltd. started disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and inquiry was conducted. A.N Pathak (a retired employee of BCCL) was appointed as an inquiry officer and he conducted the regular hearing in presence of the petitioner and presenting officer who, on the strength of evidence and preponderance of probabilities as alleged by the presenting officer, held the maintainability of charges against the petitioner and suggested punishment under the C.D.A Rules (vi) On analysis of inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd) accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer on absolute terms and imposed major punishment (removal from service) vide order dated 23.12.2014.

(vii) Aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority (Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India) under the C.D.A Rules, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 19.01.2015; befo