IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/782/2025 RAJESH RANJAN SRIVASTAVA VS COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA Hearing concluded on : 21.01.2026 JUDGEMENT ON : 21.01.2026 For Petitioner : Mr. Partha Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Amal Kr. Datta, Advocate Mr. Debashis Das, Advocate Mr. Bratin Suin, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Susanta Pal, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Kumar Roy, Advocate Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. :

1. In this writ petition, inter alia, petitioner has prayed for promotion to the appropriate executive cadre in accordance with norms and seniority as the petitioner is presently working in executive cadre in Bharat Coking Coal Limited (for short “BCCL”).

2. In connection with an accident occurred in Bagdigih Colliery, Lodna area on 2nd January, 2001, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the Coal India Ltd. (for short “CIL”) and BCCL that a criminal proceeding was also initiated against one Mr.

A.K. Sengupta and five others, which is before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate and next date is fixed on 12th February, 2026 for defence evidence. It is contended on behalf of the respondent authorities that petitioner is one of the accused in the said criminal proceeding.

4. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties it appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against five officers in connection with the accident occurred on 2nd January, 2001 in Bagdigih Colliery. Further it is found from page 71 of the writ petition that in the month of August, 2005 enquiry officer found that there was impasse in enquiry proceeding which could not be proceeded further. Finding no other option enquiry officer closed the enquiry and it was endorsed on 19th August, 2005 that case might be forwarded to the disciplinary authority for taking further steps.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one Mr. A. K.

Sengupta, Deputy Chief Mining Executive of ECL, who was similarly circumstanced like the present petitioner against whom criminal proceeding is pending and disciplinary proceeding was initiated, was favoured with promotion from E-7 grade to E-8 grade vide order dated 1st July, 2017 whereas the petitioner has been denied promotion on the count of pendency of criminal proceeding. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is going to retire on 31st May, 2026.

6. It further appears from a document at page 74 that the performance of the petitioner from 2008 – 2023 was assessed Excellent (E)/Outstanding(OS)/Very Good (VG). Therefore, it is contended that there is no impediment in granting promotion to the petitioner as per seniority and in this regard reliance is placed on clause 1.17 (h)(iii)(4) of Cadre Schemes and Promotion Procedures.

7. On behalf of BCCL and CIL prayer for promotion of the petitioner during pendency of criminal proceeding is opposed and it is submitted that there is no vigilance clearance and safety clearance and at this stage, the petitioner is not found fit to be granted promotion.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that though departmental enquiry was closed on 19th August, 2005 but just before his retirement, petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition claiming promotion, as a result whereof, writ petition needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

9. It is brought to the notice of this court that when Court is in seisin of this matter and passed an order on 7th January, 2026, subsequent thereto, Director (HR), BCCL vide office order dated 17th January, 2026 constituted an enquiry committee having four members to enquire the matter relating to the allegations made against the petitioner in connection with the accident which took place on 2nd January, 2001. Copy of the office order dated 17th January, 2026 is taken on record.

10. Question crops up after departmental enquiry which was closed by the concerned enquiry of