Chattisgarh High Court
Sudarshan Sethy vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 8 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:31148
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1045 of 2020
Order Reserved on 19.06.2025
Order Pronounced on 08.07.2025
1 - Sudarshan Sethy S/o Shri Raghu Sethy Aged About 50 Years Working
As Data Entry Operator Grade C, Personnel Department, Bishrampur
Area, O/o General Manager, Bisrampur Area, R/o Bisrampur, Post Office
Bisrampur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner
Versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through The Chairman Cum
Managing Director, S E C L, Having Its Office At Seepat Road, P O S E C
L, Bilaspur 495006 (C G) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Director - Personnel, S E C L, Having Its Office At Seepat Road, P
O S E C L, Bilaspur 495006 (C G) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - General Manager, Bisrampur Area, S E C L, Bisrampur, P. O.
Bisrampur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Area Personnel Manager, Bisrampur Area, S E C L, Bisrampur, P. O.
Bisrampur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
2
WPS No. 10265 of 2019
1 – Sudarshan Sethy S/o Shri Raghu Sethy Aged About 50 Years Working
As Data Entry Operator Grade C Personnel Department Bishrampur
Area , O/o General Manager , Bisrampur Area , R/o Bisrampur, P.O.
Bisrampur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh….(Petitioner), District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
— Petitioner
versus
1 – South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through The Chairman Cum
Managing Director, Secl Having Its Office At Seepat Road, Po Secl
Bilaspur 495006 Chhattisgarh Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh…
(Respondent), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 – The Director Personnel Secl Having Its Office At Seepat Road, Po Secl
Bilaspur 495006 Chhattisgarh Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh…
(Respondents), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 – General Manager Bisrampur Area, Secl, Bisrampur, P.S. Bisrampur ,
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
4 – Area Personnel Manager Bisrampur Area, Secl Bisrampur , P.O.
Bisrampur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
5 – Smt. Maheshwari Amaria (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl
Kusmunda Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
6 – Ku. Nan Bai (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Cws Korba
Chhattisgarh.
7 – Ram Prasad Kurrey (Sc) Data Entry Operator Secl Kusmunda
Chhattisgarh…
3
8 – Prakash Ramteke (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Raigarh
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
9 – Prahlad Singh Palkra (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Dipka
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
10 – Sobha Singh Kanwar (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Dipka
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
11 – Bhuneshwar Prasad (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Gevra
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
12 – Jawahar (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Bhatgaon
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
13 – H.P. Dhruv (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Baikunthpur
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
14 – Santosh Kumar (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Gevra
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
15 – Murlidhar Chouhan (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Gevra
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
16 – Raka (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Bhatgaon
Chhattisgarh…
17 – Gorelal Lader (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Bhatgaon
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
18 – Lal Singh (St) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Kusmunda
Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), Chhattisgarh
19 – Ram Kumar (Sc) Data Entry Operator Grade B Secl Headquarters
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh…(Respondent), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondents
4
For Petitioners : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate.
For Respondent/SECL : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla & Ms. Shrejal Gupta,
Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
C A V Order
1. Relief sought in WPS No. 10265 /2019 depends upon final
outcome of WPS No. 1045 of 2020 and parties of both the petitions are
one and the same, therefore, they are being heard analogously and
decided by this Common Order. [For the sake of convenience, WPS
No. 1045 of 2020 would be taken-up as lead case].
2.A Writ Petition (S) No. 1045 of 2020 has been filed by the
petitioner for setting aside / quashing of order dated 05.02.2020
(Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 3 whereby order dated
15/16.05.2019 has been quashed and departmental enquriy initiated
against the petitioner has been directed to be resumed and submit report
after completing the enquriy.
2.B Whereas, Writ Petition (S) No. 10265 of 2019 has been
preferred by petitioner seeking payment of salary, allowance and other
benefits for the period of suspension including promotion, as has been
granted to private respondents, on the ground that he has been acquitted
in criminal case and also exonerated from departmental enquiry
proceeding.
3. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, is that he was
initially working as Junior Data Entry Operator, Grade “D” with
respondents- SECL. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Data
Entry Operator, Grade “C” on 29.11.2014. When he was working
5
on the post of Data Entry Operator, Grade “C”, Personnel Department,
Bishrampur Area of Respondents – SECL, then in the year 2014,
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) undertook investigation of short
fall in reporting transportation of coal from Aamgaon OCM, where the
petitioner was working as Weigh Bridge Clerk at the relevant period.
CBI lodged FIR No. RC1242014A0007 for the offence (s) under Section
409 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B
of the IPC against petitioner and other officials / accused persons. The
petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2017, as such, he was placed under
suspension vide order dated 28.08.2017. Prior to pronouncement of
judgment in criminal case, Respondents – SECL initiated departmental
enquiry and issued charge-sheet on identical set of facts of criminal case,
thereafter, vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-10), Special
Judge (CBI cases), Raipur acquitted the petitioner and other co-accused
persons from all the charges in Special Criminal Case No. CBI/02/2017.
After acquittal of petitioner, he was allowed to join his duties vide order
dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure P-14), thereafter, he joined his services on
the same day itself. During hearing in departmental enquriy, judgment
passed by learned CBI Court was placed on record, thereafter, Enquiry
Officer submitted his report (Annexure P-17) and recommended that
since the petitioner has been acquitted by Special Court (CBI), therefore,
enquiry cannot be conducted after clean acquittal of the petitioner by CBI
Court. Based on that enquriy report, the petitioner was exonerated from
the departmental enquriy vide order dated 15/16-5-2019 (Annexure P-18),
but respondent No. 1 asked the respondent No. 3 vide communication
6
dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-19) to resume departmental enquiry
against the petitioner on the ground that enquiry proceeding has not been
done in accordance with law / procedure. Thereafter, respondent No. 3
passed impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 05.02.2020 whereby order
dated 15/16-05-2019 exonerating the petitioner has been quashed and
enquiry officer was directed to resume / re-initiate enquiry proceeding
against the petitioner and submit report after completing enquiry, which
give rise to file Writ Petition (S) No. 1045 of 2020. Because of his
suspension, he was not paid salary, allowances and other monetary
benefits for suspension period including promotion, therefore, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No. 10265 of 2019 seeking relief to grant
him entire salary, allowance and other benefits for the period of
suspension including promotion, as was granted to private respondents.
4. The respondents have filed their return stating inter alia that
enquriy officer concluded enquiry without examination of departmental
witnesses and without exhibiting documents and he concluded enquriy
report only because the petitioner and other accused persons have been
acquitted in criminal case. Therefore, Enquiry Officer held that charges
levelled against the petitioner is not proved, but, since departmental
enquiry proceeding had not been conduced in accordance with law /
procedure, hence, when order of exoneration of petitioner dated
15/16.05.2019 was brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 –
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, SECL, it exercised its powers under
the provisions of Clause 31 of the Certified Standing Orders and
issued letter dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-19) to the
7
disciplinary / approving authority to re-open enquiry proceeding against
the petitioner on account of various defects in the previous enquiry.
Thereafter, vide order dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.
3 quashed the order of exoneration dated 15/16-05-2019 of petitioner on
the ground that, the management representative had not presented the
case of management at all, as none of the management exhibits were
produced in the enquiry nor any management witnesses were examined,
thereby, vitiated the entire enquiry proceedings. Further, the enquiry
Officer considered only the court’s order in respect of criminal charges
levelled against the petitioner, without examining into departmental
charges, as such, enquiry is incomplete. Hence, vide Annexure P-1 the
Enquiry Officer was directed to resume enquiry proceeding and submit
report after completing the enquriy. Since, departmental enquiry
proceedings against the petitioner was not conducted in accordance with
law and procedure, therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
rejected.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
charge, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in impugned
departmental enquiry and Special Criminal case are one and same,
therefore, after acquittal in criminal case departmental case would be
nothing, but a futile exercise. In this regard, he relied upon in the case of
Capt. M. Paulanthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & anr. 1, G.M. Tank
vs. State of Gujarat & another2, which has further been relied upon by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing
1 (1999) 3 SCC 679
2 (2006) 5 SCC 446
8
Director (Administrative and HR) Vs. C. Nagraju & Anr.3
5.1 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that
in departmental case and Special Criminal Case, witnesses are the same
and during trial, those witnesses were cross-examined before the Court,
therefore, the value of the statement of those witnesses in departmental case
have worthless and would not help the enquiry because the Criminal Court
has already considered the oral and documentary evidence of all the
witnesses and held that no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is
further submitted that since the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal
case, therefore, re-opening / continuation of departmental enquiry is illegal
and amounts to double jeopardy, hence, impugned order dated 05.02.2020
(Annexure P-1) is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that while
dealing with charges of criminal breach of trust & corruption, learned Criminal
Court has categorically dealt with allegations levelled against the petitioner in
light of oral & documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and held
that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the allegations, as such,
permitting re-initiation / resuming departmental enquiry amounts to review /
revisit and reopen the judicial conclusion reached by a special court of law,
which is not permissible under the law, therefore, continuation of
departmental enquiry proceeding is against the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in aforecited cases, hence, it is prayed that impugned order
dated 5.2.2020 (Annexure P-1) and entire departmental enquiry proceedings
re-initiated against the petitioner may be quashed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents / SECL while referring to
its reply would submit that it is settled law that the acquittal of an
3 (2019) 10 SCC 367
9
employee by Criminal Court cannot automatically and concisely impact
departmental proceeding, because firstly, disparate degrees of proof in two,
viz, beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution contrasted by
preponderance of probability in civil and departmental cases Secondly,
criminal prosecution is not within the control of the concerned department
and acquittal could be the consequence of shoddy investigation or slovenly
assimilation of evidence, or lackadaisical if not collusive conduct of trial etc.
Thirdly, an acquittal in a criminal prosecution may not preclude a contrary
conclusion in a departmental enquiry if the former is a positive decision in
contradistinction to a passive verdict, which may be predicated on technical
infirmities. In other words, the Criminal Court must conclude that the
accused is innocent and not merely conclude that he has not been proved to
be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He placed reliance upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative
and HR) (Supra) and Union of India & Others Vs. Purushottam 4 in
support of his submission.
6.1 It is further submitted that since enquiry report (Ex.P-17) was
prepared without examining all departmental witnesses and without
exhibiting documents, rather it was concluded merely on the basis of
judgment passed by the Criminal Court and based on which, the petitioner
was exonerated vide order dated 15/16-5-2019 , therefore, finding it to be
against the law & procedure, the same has been set aside by respondent
authorities and re-initiation of departmental enquiry has been ordered, which
is very well within the premise of law / procedure of respondents-SECL.
It is next contended that allegations / charges framed against the
4 2015 (3) SCC 779
10
petitioner under the criminal case and departmental enquiry are not one and
the same, as charges levelled against the petitioner in departmental
proceeding are in respect of his failure to maintain absolute integrity and act
of omission or commission in maintaining the record on the part of petitioner,
tantamount not fulfillment of duties and obligations, which fall as misconduct
under Sections 26.1, 26.13 & 26.22 of Standing order of the Company. As
such, even after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, the employer has
a right to conduct departmental enquriy in accordance with rules /
procedure / Standing Order. It is further contended that purpose of
underlying departmental proceeding is distinctly different from the purpose
behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offence by them. While
criminal prosecution for offence, is launched for violation of a duty that
offenders owes to the society, whereas departmental enquiry is aimed to
maintain discipline and efficiency in service. Further, it is settled law that the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not
ordinarily be exercised for quashing a Show Cause Notice / charge-sheet,
except in rare case of total lack of jurisdiction or illegality. It is also settled
law that the examination of correctness or truth of charge is the function of
disciplinary authority, therefore, High Court ought not to have interfered with.
6.2 Learned counsel for respondents – SECL further submits that if
criminal case did not cover entire field of departmental proceeding, then
departmental proceedings may go on, as has been settled by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR)
{supra} and State of Karnataka and another vs. Umesh5. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has failed to show, what is the illegality in
5 2022 (6) SCC 563
11
re-initiation of departmental enquiry to be interfered with by the High Court
invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, therefore, he submits that the instant petition is liable
to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record with utmost circumspection.
8. As per the petitioner, for the same set of allegations / charges, he and
other officials of SECL have been charge-sheeted firstly in Special Criminal
Case No. CBI/02/2017, in which, vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure
P-10), the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been acquitted by
the Special Court (CBI), Secondly, prior to that acquittal, departmental
enquiry was initiated and charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on the
basis of same set of charges and evidence. In said enquiry proceeding, on
the basis of enquiry report (Ex.P-17, the petitioner was exonerated from the
charges levelled against him vide order dated 15/16.5.2019 (Annexure P-18),
but finding the enquiry proceeding conducted against the law & procedure
vide impugned order dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), same has been
ordered to be re-initiated / resumed by setting aside enquiry report and order
of exoneration of the petitioner.
9. The core issue involved in the instant petition is, as to whether
acquittal of the petitioner by Special criminal Court would debar an employer
from exercising power to conduct / continue departmental enquiry
proceedings against him ?
10. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, judgment rendered
by the Apex Court pertaining the issue are apt to be noticed hereunder :-
12
11. In the matter of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat6, their Lordships of the
Supreme Court have held in paragraph 31 as under :-
“31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the
department as well as criminal proceedings were the same
without there being any iota of difference, the appellant
should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved
between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the
basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be
applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in
the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts
below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the
employee during the pendency of the proceedings
challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken
note of and the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679 will
apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be allowed.”
12. In the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR)
[supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank (supra) and other
cases have held as under :-
“9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer
from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings
in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two
proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different.6 (2006) 5 SCC 446
13They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the
Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his
removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case
may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is
whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act
are established, and if established, what sentence should be
imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry
and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are
significantly distinct and different.
13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the
Appellant and the Respondent No.1, we are of the view that
interference with the order of dismissal by the High Court was
unwarranted. It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court
does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent
officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of
the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the
Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the
criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out
whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct
rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be
continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental
Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of
dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer
in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence
available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no
interference by the High Court.”
13. The principle of law laid down in the matter of Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director
14
(Administrative and HR) vs. C. Nagraju & Anr. (supra) has been reiterated
& followed with approval by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and
another vs. Umesh (supra) in which their Lordships have held as under :-
“16. The principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are
distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a
prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law,
the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients
of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is
entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a
disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an
allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a
violation of the service rules governing the relationship of
employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge
has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a
disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be
established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of
evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those
which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the
accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from
proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction.
22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act
as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary
authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on
the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been
arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry.
15The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its
review to determine whether:
(i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with;
(ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some
evidence;
(iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the
disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and
(iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority
suffer from perversity; and
(vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven
misconduct.
23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the
interference of the High Court were attracted in the present
case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised
the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with
the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The
Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls
within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry
was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary
authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which
was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the
respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge
upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of
misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding.
16
14. In the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others 7, Hon’ble
Supreme Court while considering the issue that, what is the effect of acquittal
order by the Judge in Criminal trial in departmental enquiry proceeding, has
held legal position as under :-
“11. We have examined both the questions independently. We
are conscious of the fact that a writ court’s power to review
the order of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. The
scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-
making process is legitimate. [See State Bank of India vs.
A.G.D. Reddy, 2023:INSC:766 = 2023 (11) Scale 530]. As
part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial
review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it
so finds, courts are not powerless to interfere. [See United
Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022:INSC:117 =
(2022) 13 SCC 329]
12. We are also conscious of the fact that mere acquittal by
a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to
claim any benefit, including reinstatement. (See Deputy
Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram,
(2013) 1 SCC 598).
13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and
the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the
evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the
same, then the matter acquires a different dimension.
If the court in judicial review concludes that
7 (2024) 1 SCC 175
17
the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full
consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court
in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances.
The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant
relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and
oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M.
Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State
Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657
and S. Samuthiram (supra)]”
15. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharana Pratap
Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others8 has held as under :-
47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle the accused to have an order of
setting aside of his dismissal from public service following
disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when
the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in
both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings
are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes
a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in
the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and
oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in
G.M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent
origin in Ram Lal (supra).
8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890
18
16. Thus, it is settled law that, acquittal in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle the accused / delinquent employee to have an order of
dismissal of departmental enquiry or debar employer to conduct / continue
departmental enquiry. However, when the charges, evidence, witnesses and
circumstances in both the cases i.e. departmental enquiry and the criminal
proceedings are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different
dimensions. If the Court in judicial review concludes that dimensions,
circumstances of charges and evidence are simillar and the acquittal in criminal
proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge (s), the Court in judicial review
can grant redress in certain circumstances and will be entitled to exercise its
discretion in granting relief, if it reaches to the conclusion that allowing finding in
the departmental proceeding will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. But, it has
also been held that each case will rests on its own facts & circumstances.
17. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, perusal of charges of
criminal case shows that it has been levelled against the petitioner for
commission of offence of ‘criminal breach of trust’ by causing physical loss of
huge quantity of coal of crores of rupees and to conceal the same, they
fabricated official record and also prepared bogus documents in connivance
with other accused persons, whereas charge (s) levelled in the departmental
case against petitioner is falsification and fabrication of documents with ulterior
motive to conceal the actual transportation trips and to justify false production
prepared false data and transportation card to conceal coal stock shortage.
Thus, he committed act of misconduct under Sections 26.1, 26.13 & 26.22 of
Standing Order.
19
18. Causing physical loss of huge quantity of coal worth crores of
rupees by manipulating official record / data and by fabricating false & bogus
documents attracts criminal offence against petitioner, but not maintaining
official record, preparing /entering false data in official record and preparing
false transport card with intention to conceal shortage of coal stock, whereas,
the petitioner being incharge of Weigh Bridge Clerk was duty bound to enter
actual data and prepare actual transport trip card, but he failed to comply with
the relevant provisions of Standing Order, as such, he failed to maintain
absolute integrity, duties and obligations of Weigh Bridge Clerk. Such
misconduct of the petitioner attracts civil consequences and departmental
proceeding.
19. If any charge (s) for commission of crime is made against any
officer or employee in criminal case, in which, there is no element of violation of
any departmental rules, procedure, order, instructions, etc, then if such officer /
employee is acquitted in criminal case, then neither departmental enquiry can
be conducted in relation of such charge (s) nor he can be punished in
departmental enquiry based on such charge, like murder, robbery & dacoity,
etc., however, if the element of violation of departmental rules, procedure,
order, direction etc. is also involved in the occurrence of that crime, then on the
basis of mere acquittal in a criminal case, the employer cannot be deprived of
his right to conduct a departmental enquiry against concerned officer /
employee and to punish him for violation of such rules, procedure, order,
direction etc.
20. In the instant case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons
despite being officer / employee of SECL, they misappropriated / disposed of
huge quantity of coal of mines worth crores of rupees and causes financial loss
to the SECL and to do this, they did not do their duties as per the rules /
20
standing order/ directions, rather they manipulated / fabricated official data /
records and prepared bogus documents. Thus, the petitioner and other
accused persons not only cause financial loss to the SECL and committed
criminal breach of trust, rather they also violated relevant rules, procedure,
order / direction of SECL / Coal India Limited, therefore, it cannot be said that
dimension / field / circumstances of charge (s) in both the cases i.e.
departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are one and the same.
21. In the matter of Union of India & others vs. Sitaram Mishra and
another9, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that, “A disciplinary
enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a
criminal case. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish
the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is
to enable the employer to determine as to whether an employee has committed
a breach of the service rules. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court in various other afore-cited cases.
22. In the instant case, though the petitioner has been acquitted from
criminal case, but departmental enquiry proceedings is being conducted
against him to determine as to whether he has committed breach of service
rules or not. Therefore, acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case would not
debar an employee from exercising the power to conduct departmental enquiry
in accordance with applicable rules and regulars.
23. Perusal of judgment dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by
Special Judge, CBI show that petitioner and other accused persons have been
acquitted of the charges because prosecution has failed to prove the case,
beyond reasonable doubt. This finding shows that neither it is a case
9 (2019) 20 SCC 588
21
of clear-cut acquittal nor a case of no evidence. In this regard, following
observations of aforesaid judgment are required to be looked into :-
“71- प्रति परीक्षण के तहत आर के दास अ.सा.-54 [Investigation
Officer (foospd½] ने अपने प्रति परीक्षण की कडिका 52 में यह स्वीकारकिया है कि समस्त वे ब्रिज रजिस्टर पर एसईसीएल के अधिकारी / कर्मचारी
के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है तथा यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि वे ब्रिज क्लर्क केहस्ताक्षर के सबंध में उनका नमूना हस्ताक्षर नहीं लिया गया तथा सबधित
पंजियों पर पूरा ट्रक नबर उल्लेखित नहीं है और परिवहन में प्रयुक्त गाडियों केपजीयन नाम की स्थिति भी दर्शित नहीं है। इसी प्रकार आर के दास अ.सा.-
54 ने अपने प्रति परीक्षण की कंडिका 59 में यह स्वीकार किया है कि उसकेव्दारा प्रस्तुत 313 ट्रिप कार्ड के संबध में हस्तलेख एव हस्ताक्षर बाबत नमूना
नहीं लिया गया और उनके फर्जी होने के सबंध में कोई जाच नहीं की गयी।यद्यपि साक्षी ने वे ब्रिज क्लर्क के रजिस्टर से मिलान करने की स्थिति दर्शित
की है, किंतु उपरोक्त स्थिति में यह स्पष्ट किया जा चुका है कि प्रस्तुत वे ब्रिजक्लर्क रजिस्टर भी प्रक्रिया अनुसार संधारित न होने के कारण उनकी प्रविष्टियां
गणना करने योग्य नहीं मानी जा सकती।
72- ऐसी स्थिति में श्याम सुंदर रात्रे अ.सा.-46 का कथन भी महत्वपूर्ण है,
क्योंकि उसने यह दर्शित किया है कि आमगांव ओसीपी में माईन्स फेस से
स्टाक यार्ड तक के विभिन्न ट्रि प रजिस्टर थे उनमें उल्लेखित ट्रिपों की सख्याएव आमगाव ओसीपी के काटाघर में मेनटेन किये गये रिकार्ड में उल्लेखित
ट्रिपों की संख्या मेल नहीं खाती थी। इस साक्षी ने उक्त स्थिति के कारणअधिकतर सुरक्षा गार्ड का कम पढा लिखा होना एवं vkexkao
ओसीपी में आधारभूत ढांचे का अभाव सहित अन्य विपरीत परिस्थितियों में
गलत इन्द्राज होने अथवा इन्द्राज न होने की स्थिति दर्शित की है। ऐसीस्थिति में उक्त साक्षी के मुख्य परीक्षण के आधार पर ही यह स्पष्ट है कि
अभियोजन व्दारा प्रस्तुत वे ब्रिज रजिस्टर एव ट्रिप कार्ड अथवा स्टाक यार्डके संबध में प्रस्तुत दस्तावेज प्रक्रिया अनुसार विधि सम्मत न होने से
विश्वसनीय नहीं माने जा सकते तथा उनके आधार पर निष्कर्ष दिया जानाअत्यत असुरक्षित होगा।
22
74-महत्वपूर्ण स्थिति यह है कि कोल स्टाक मेजरमेंट करना अथवा करवाना
वस्तुतः साधारण स्थिति नहीं है, बल्कि तकनीकी ज्ञान, तैयारी एव सीआईएलकी गाईड लाईन के बिना किया जाना सभव नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में आर के
दास अ.सा.-54 का यह स्वीकार करना कि उसे कोल स्टाक मेजरमेंट काव्यक्तिगत ज्ञान नहीं है तथा उसने ज्वाईट सरप्राईज चेक अथवा कोल स्टाक
कम होने का भौतिक सत्यापन नहीं किया था तथा यह भी स्वीकार किया हैकि विवेचना के दौरान प्रकरण की अवधि के संबंध में कोयले के उत्पादन,
विक्रय, परिवहन एवं उपलब्ध स्टाक का पृथक से गणना कर भौतिक सत्यापननहीं किया एवं आरोपी एस के रानू के पूर्व महाप्रबंधक सहित अन्य
अधिकारियों व्दारा किये गये मेजरमेंट का विशलेषण नहीं किया गया, तब यहस्पष्ट है कि प्रदर्श पी 160 की प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट के अनुसरण में ठोस एवं
धरातलीय विवेचना का पूर्ण त अभाव अभिलेख से दर्शित है।75- इस प्रकार मात्र सतही कार्यवाही, ftlesa साक्ष्य लेना एवं दस्तावेज
संकलित करना ही समुचित विवेचना का अंग नहीं माना जा सकता तथाविवेचना के तहत उत्पादन, विक्रय, परिवहन एवं शेष स्टाक के भौतिक
सत्यापन के बिना पूर्व दस्तावेजी आकडों जिनके सबंध में दर्शित मेजरमेंटप्रक्रियागत कारणों से समुचित नहीं होना विवेचना में पाया गया, के आधार पर
यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट के पश्चात वास्तविक रूप से विवेचना केतहत किसी भी स्थिति का भौतिक सत्यापन न होने से मात्र दस्तावेजी
आकडों के आधार पर निष्कर्ष दिया जाना उचित नहीं है।77- इस प्रकार उक्त प्रतिरक्षा को आरोपीगण व्दारा बनायी गयी प्रतिरक्षा
नहीं माना जा सकता। साथ gh जहां आर के दास विवेचक व्दारा यह स्वीकार
किया गया है कि कनवर्सन फेक्टर के संबंध में डायरेक्टर टेक्निकल का कोई
बयान नहीं लिया गया था, तब उक्त स्थिति स्पष्ट करती है कि विवेचक व्दाराअपनी विवेचना में सबधित तथ्यों को स्पष्ट करने हेतु अन्वेषण नहीं किया
गया।
79- यह स्पष्ट है कि न्यू कोड बुक दिनांक 01.01.2012 से प्रवृत्त हुई,
किंतु अभियोजन व्दारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया कि वास्तव में क्वाटरलीस्टाक मेजरमेंट के 15 दिन के भीतर ओवर बर्डन रिमूवल कार्यवाही की
गयी। इस प्रकार जहां ओवर cMZu रिमूवल कार्यवाही के संबंध में डाटा
23प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया, तब यह स्पष्ट है कि अभियोजन ने यह निर्धारित करने
का प्रयास नहीं किया कि वास्तव में संबंधित माईन्स में कितनी जगह खालीहुई, जिसके आधार पर उत्पादन का मिलान किया जा सके।
87- इस प्रकार हस्तगत प्रकरण में जहां उपरोक्त कोल स्टाक मेजरमेंट के
आधार पर संपत्ति का न्यस्त किया जाना प्रमाणित नहीं है, तब लेखा विवरणके प्रस्तुत किये जाने अर्थात स्पष्टीकरण देने की कोई आवश्यकता
vkjksihx.k के संबंध में नहीं मानी जा सकती। साथ ही जहां चोरी अथवा
आपराधिक न्यास भग अर्थात सपत्ति का अपने पक्ष में बेईमानीपूर्व क
दर्वि
ु नियोग प्रमाणित नहीं है, तब यह स्पष्ट है कि अभियुक्तगण सदेह का लाभ
प्राप्त करने के हकदार है।
95- इस प्रकार जहां कोयले की कमी प्रमाणित नहीं है, वहीं दिनांक 11
जनवरी से 23 जनवरी 2014 के मध्य कोल परिवहन के संबंध में प्रस्तुत ट्रि पकार्ड फर्जी होना प्रमाणित नहीं पाये गये , तब यह स्पष्ट है कि संपत्ति के न्यस्त
होने के सबंध में प्रमाणित स्थिति अभिलेख पर न होने से अभियोजन व्दारा
प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त न्याय दृष्टात हिमाचल प्रदेश विरूद्ध कर्णवीर में दर्शित सिद्वात
का लाभ अभियोजन को नहीं दिया जा सकता। साथ ही प्रकरण कीपरिस्थितियों में भी उक्त उपधारणा आरोपीगण के विरूद्ध किये जाने हेतु
स्थिति अभियोजन के पक्ष में प्रमाणित नहीं है।”
24. From perusal of observations made by Special Judge (CBI) vide
judgment dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-10) show that since there was various
lacunae found in investigation and documents were also not proved by the
prosecution in accordance with law, therefore, learned Special Judge has
acquitted by granting benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Hence, it cannot
be said that it is not a case of no evidence at all. Further, departmental
proceeding is being conducted against the petitioner to determine, as to
whether he has committed / violated the service rules,
procedure/Standing order or not and the same is being conducted under the
24
service Rules & Regulations. Nature, dimensions / field of charge (s) of both the
proceedings i.e. criminal case and departmental enquiry proceedings are also
not one and the same, therefore, objection raised by the petitioner, that re-
initiation / continuation of departmental enquiry proceeding after his acquittal in
Special Criminal case is misconceived, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Rather, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court re-initation /
continuation of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is well
within the premise of law.
25. Since enquiry report (Annexure P-17) was prepared without examining all
departmental witnesses and without exhibiting documents and the same has
been prepared merely on the basis of judgment of acquittal of petitioner in
criminal case, therefore, order of quashment dated 15/16.5.2019 (Annexure P-
18) whereby the petitioner was exonerated from departmental enquiry and re-
initiation / resumption of departmental enquiry against the petitioner vide order
dated 5.1.2020 (Annexure P-1) is also not found to be perverse or illegal. Even,
not granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing impugned
order Annexure P-1 does not vitiate it because departmental proceeding was
not concluded to its logical end, in accordance with law because enquiry report
was submitted only on the basis of judgment passed by criminal court.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in Writ Petition
(S) No. 1045 of 2020 , hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
27. Consequently, stay granted by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2020
also stands vacated.
25
28. Since re-initiation / re-opening of departmental enquiry initiated
against the petitioner by respondents is well within the premise of law,
therefore, at this stage, relief sought for by petitioner in W. P. (S) No. 10265 of
2019 cannot be granted to him. Hence, W.P. (S) No. 10265 of 2019 is also
dismissed. No cost (s).
Sd/-
Digitally
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
JUDGE
signed by
AMIT AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2025.07.09
11:05:51
+0530
[ad_1]
Source link