THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.5022/2022 (BINOD KUMAR MANDAL Vs SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur; Date:07/03/2022 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, counsel for the petitioner.

Ms.Shikha Sharma, counsel for respondents.

Heard on the question of admission.

By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated against him in furtherance to the charge-sheet issued on

11/12/2021 by respondent-department.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been asked to appear before the inquiry officer on 08/02/2022, so as to take part in the departmental enquiry. He submits that a criminal case has also been filed by the CBI, in which same charges have been levelled against the petitioner and said case is pending before the Special Judge.

According to the petitioner when same set of witnesses are to be examined in departmental enquiry and also in criminal proceeding initiated by CBI, it would be appropriate to stay the proceeding of departmental enquiry or postpone the same for few days, so as to avoid any prejudice to the defence of the petitioner.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that there is no dispute with respect to the existing legal position that there is no legal bar to conduct the disciplinary proceeding and criminal trial simultaneously and no strait jacket formula can be spelt out. The court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matter on case to case basis. To buttress his submission, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Neelam Nag (2016) 9 SCC 491 and submits that the proceeding of departmental enquiry may be stayed.

Quite to the contrary, counsel for the respondent while opposing the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was lodged on 29/06/2017 and thereafter criminal trial was initiated against the petitioner. She submits that criminal trial is pending since 2017 and not concluded sofar and it is also difficult to ascertain as to within what time it would be concluded. Under such a circumstance, it is not appropriate to stay the departmental proceeding. She further submits that from the charge-sheet filed by CBI, it is clear that the petitioner had obtained appointment by submitting false and forged matriculation certificate as well as experience certificate. I have considered the contentions put forth by counsel for parties and perused the record.

It clearly emerges on record that CBI has submitted the challan and trial is pending since long. Petitioner has filed list of witnesses and documents which were part of the challan submitted by CBI and also filed a copy of charge-sheet issued on 11/12/2021 by the respondent-department. In the said charge-sheet only name of one witness namely Shri Rajiv Anand, Inspector of Police CBI, ACB, Dhanwad is arrayed, whereas in the list of witnesses produced by CBI, name of 64 witnesses have been shown to be recorded. Taking note of the fact that trial is pending since last four years and it is also impossible to say as to within what time it would take final shape, it does not seem to be proper to stay the departmental enquiry merely because criminal trial is pending.

Recently, this Court in W.P.No.3622/2022 (Jaipal Singh Rathore and others Vs.State of M.P) taking note of the order passed by the Division Bench as well as Supreme Court has passed an order on 16/02/2022. The Apex Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Dalbir Singh (Cvil Appeal No.5848/2021) has held that departmental enquiry and of prosecution case there are different purposes and having distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution has launched for an offence for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The depar