[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
A. K. Singh vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 8 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:31148
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1109 of 2020
Order Reserved on 19.06.2025
Order Pronounced on 08.07.2025
1 - A. K. Singh S/o Badri Nath Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Quarter No. D-
11, Shakti Nagar, Jarhi, Post Bhatgaon, Colliery, District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited A Mini Ratna Company, Through Its
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited,
Registered Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chairman-Cum-Managing Director/disciplinary Authority, South Eastern
Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur Area, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Enquiry Authority / Officer Ex-Director (Commercial) Moil 5th Floor,
Mahima Kamlini Appt. Palm Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001, District :
Nagpur, Maharashtra
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Kabeer Kawani, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj
Paranjpe, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
2
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
C A V Order
1. By way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet issued to
him on 23.05.2018 (vide Annexure P-1) by respondent No. 2 and also the
entire Departmental proceedings and order dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-9)
inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner has already been acquitted in a
Criminal Case No. C.B.I. 02/ 2017 by Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Raipur
vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 and the Departmental enquiry proceedings
initiated by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (henceforth, “SECL”) is based on
the identical and similar set of facts and the evidence, therefore, continuation
of departmental proceeding is illegal.
2. Imperative facts leading to file instant writ petition are that petitioner
was initially appointed on the post of “Colliery Manager” and was posted at
Bhatgaon Colliery, subsequently, he was promoted to the post of “Manager”.
Presently, he is holding the post of Senior Manager Mining and is posted at
SECL, Bhatgaon Area. On 17.11.2014, “Central Bureau of Investigation”
(C.B.I.), Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, Bhilai Branch registered C.B.I.
Case No. RC1242014A0007 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 &
409 of the Indian Code read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) &
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and four
other accused persons, on the allegation of pilferage of coal from Amagaon,
Open Cast Mine of SECL, Bishrampur area in the conspiracy with other
officers and employees of SECL and transporter and diverted the shortage
coal to the open market. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the petitioner and other co-accused persons, which was registered as Special
Criminal Case No. CBI / 02/2017. Learned Special Judge of Special Court
3(CBI Cases), Raipur acquitted all the accused persons by giving them benefit
of doubt vide judgment dated 25.07.2018. Prior to this, vide order dated
23.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 2/SECL, departmental
enquiry proceedings was ordered to be initiated against petitioner and other
accused persons and charge-sheet was served to the petitioner. After
judgment of acquittal dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by Special
Judge, CBI, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-8) before
respondent No. 2 for dismissal of departmental inquiry proceeding initiated
against him, on the ground that since criminal case and departmental enquiry
proceedings are based on same set of facts & evidence and he has been
acquitted in criminal case, therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry
proceedings is unwarranted, illegal and amounts to double jeopardy, but the
same has been rejected by respondent No. 2- SECL vide impugned order
dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-9), which give rise to file instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that charges,
evidence, witnesses and circumstances in impugned departmental case and
Special Criminal case are one and the 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 Director (Administrative and HR) vs. C. Nagraju & Anr.3
1 (1999) 3 SCC 679
2 (2006) 5 SCC 446
3 (2019) 10 SCC 367
4
3.1. 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. He further submits that after acquittal
from the Special Criminal Court, the petitioner raised specific objection before
respondent No. 2 vide application (Annexure P-8) that since he has been
acquitted in criminal case, therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry is
illegal and amounts to double jeopardy, hence, it be dismissed but the same
has been rejected by respondent No. 2/SECL without adhering the law laid
down by the Apex Court in afore-cited cases and the same is kept pending
with malafide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that, while dealing with the charge of criminal breach of trust & corruption,
Criminal Court has categorically dealt with the allegations levelled against the
petitioner in light of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution and held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the
charges. Therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry proceeding is
against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-cited cases,
hence, he prayed that this petition may be allowed and the entire
departmental enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner deserves to
be quashed.
4. Respondents / SECL has filed its return stating inter alia that the
petitioner has filed instant petition for quashment of charge-sheet and entire
departmental proceeding, whereas it is settled law that departmental
proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of acquittal of
5
delinquent employee in a criminal case. As there is no legal bar to not
continuing the departmental proceeding even after acquittal from the criminal
charges, as has been provided under the Certified Standing Order of
Company (SECL) / Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978 {henceforth,
CDA Rules, 1978} of Coal India Limited, therefore, the instant petition is liable
to be rejected on this sole ground.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents / SECL while referring to
its reply would submit that it is settled law that the acquittal of an 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. Purushottam4 in support of his submission.
5.1 It is further contended that even after acquittal in the criminal
case, the petitioner is regularly participating in the inquiry before the Inquiry
4 2015 (3) SCC 779
6
Officer and also cross-examined the management witnesses. It is next
contended that allegations / charges framed against the petitioner under
criminal case and departmental enquiry are not one and the same, as charges
levelled against the petitioner in departmental enquiry 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 the petitioner, tantamount
not fulfillment of duties and obligations of an executive as contained in rule 4.1
(I), 4.1 (iv) and 4.2 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978 of the
Coal India Limited. As such, even after acquittal of the petitioner, the employer
has a right to conduct or initiate departmental inquiry in accordance with the
Rules prescribed under the CDA Rules, 1978. It is further contended that
purpose of underlying departmental proceeding is distinctly different from the
purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them.
While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty
that the 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.
Representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Authority vide
order 02.01.2010 (Annexure P-9) taking into all submission and grounds
raised by the petitioner. He further submits that judgments relied upon by the
counsel for petitioner is not helpful to him in fact situation of instant case.
7
5.2. Learned counsel for the respondents / SECL while referring to
Clause 7.8.4 of Vigilance Manual, 2017 issued by Central Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi at Chapter-VII would submit that if criminal case did
not cover entire field of departmental proceedings, then departmental
proceedings may go on, as has been settled by Apex Court in the case 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 the charge-sheet issued
by the authority to be interfered with by the High Court invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather continuation of
departmental proceeding is well within the premises of authority of
Respondents / SECL, even after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case,
therefore, the instant petition is liable to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record with utmost circumspection.
7. 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-5), the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the
Special Court, Secondly, prior to that acquittal vide impugned order dated
23.05.2018 (Annexure P-1), charge-sheet was served to the petitioner and
departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated against him on the basis
of same set of charges and evidence. After getting acquittal in Special
Criminal Case, application (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner for dismissal
of departmental enquiry proceedings on the ground of aforesaid acquittal has
5 (2022) 6 SCC 563
8
been rejected by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 02.01.2020
(Annexure P-9).
8. 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 ?
9. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, judgment rendered by
the Apex Court pertaining the issue are apt to be noticed hereunder :-
10. 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.”
6 (2006) 5 SCC 446
9
11. 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. They 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
10continued 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.”
12. The principle of law laid down in the matter of Karnataka Power
Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director
(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
11accused 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. The 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.
12
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.
13. In the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others7, 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).
7 (2024) 1 SCC 175
13
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 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)]”
14. 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
8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890
14the 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.
15. 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 all the fields of the
charges and evidence are similar in both the cases and the acquittal in the
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 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.
16. 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 first charge levelled in the departmental case against petitioner is
falsification and fabrication of official records with ulterior motive to conceal the
coal stock shortage by not mentioning about it and also not mentioning about
vigilance investigation in the boolket of Annual Coal Stock Measurement for the
15
financial year 2013-14 and subsequently wrong mentioning about coal stock
shortage within permissible limit without conducting actual measurements of
heaps of coal of Amgaon OCM. Second charge levelled against the petitioner in
departmental case is that, he did not conduct monthly measurements of vendible
coal stock for the month of April – 2014 to May – 2014 wherein huge coal stock
shortage existed and to conceal the same, prepared false & fabricated
documents to protect other co-accused persons and he himself admitted in
writing that there was a coal stock shortage to the tune of 45,000 tonnes. Thus,
he failed to comply the relevant provisions of New Code for uniform system of
maintenance, control and verification of Coal stock in all Mines of Coal India
Limited and thereby compromise the company’s guidelines and failed to
maintain absolute integrity, duties and obligations of an executive as contained
in said Rules of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India
Limited.
17. Causing physical loss of huge quantity of coal worth crores of rupees by
manipulating official record and by fabricating false & bogus documents attracts
criminal offence against petitioner, but not maintaining official record, not
conducting actual measurements of heaps of coal of Amgaon OCM, not
conducting monthly measurement of vendible coal stocks, which resulted into
shortage of coal stock [same has been admitted by petitioner himself in writing,
as per the Articles of charge], whereas, the petitioner being colliery manager
was duty bound to maintain records and act as per relevant rules, to which, he
failed and flouted the relevant rules mentioned in Article of Charges. Such
misconduct of the petitioner attracts civil consequences and departmental
proceeding.
18. 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
16
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.
19. 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 /
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.
20. In the case 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
9 (2019) 20 SCC 588
17
a breach of the service rules. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme
Court in other afore-cited cases.
21. 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. As has
been discussed above, nature, circumstances and gravity of charges in both the
cases are also not found to be one and the same, therefore, acquittal of the
petitioner in criminal case would not debar an employer from exercising the
power to conduct departmental enquiry in accordance with the applicable Rules
and Regulations.
22. Clause 7.8.4 of Vigilance Manual, 2017 (Annexure R-1) also authorize the
respondents / employer to conduct departmental enquiry against employee,
even if he is acquitted from criminal court, but, if criminal case did not cover the
entire field of departmental proceedings.
23. Perusal of judgment dated 25.07.2018 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 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 स्वीकार कियाहै कि समस्त वे ब्रिज रजिस्टर पर एसईसीएल के अधिकारी / कर्मचारी के
हस्ताक्षर नहीं है तथा यह भी स्वीकार किया है कि वे ब्रिज क्लर्क के हस्ताक्षर केसबंध में उनका नमूना हस्ताक्षर नहीं लिया गया तथा सबधित पंजियों पर पूरा
ट्रक नबर उल्लेखित नहीं है और परिवहन में प्रयुक्त गाडियों के पजीयन नाम कीस्थिति भी दर्शित नहीं है। इसी प्रकार आर के दास अ.सा.-
1854 ने अपने प्रति परीक्षण की कंडिका 59 में यह स्वीकार किया है कि उसके
व्दारा 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 ट्रिप रजिस्टर थे उनमें उल्लेखित ट्रि पों 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 कारण अधिकतरसुरक्षा 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। ऐसी स्थिति में उक्त साक्षी के मुख्यपरीक्षण के आधार पर ही यह स्पष्ट है कि अभियोजन व्दारा प्रस्तुत वे ब्रिज
रजिस्टर एव ट्रिप कार्ड अथवा स्टाक यार्ड के संबध में प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजप्रक्रिया अनुसार विधि सम्मत न होने से विश्वसनीय नहीं माने जा सकते तथा
उनके आधार पर निष्कर्ष दिया जाना अत्यत असुरक्षित होगा।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 है किविवेचना के दौरान प्रकरण की अवधि के संबंध में कोयले के उत्पादन, विक्रय,
परिवहन एवं उपलब्ध स्टाक का पृथक से गणना कर भौतिक सत्यापन नहींकिया एवं आरोपी एस के रानू के पूर्व महाप्रबंधक सहित अन्य अधिकारियों
व्दारा किये गये मेजरमेंट का विशलेषण नहीं किया गया, तब यह स्पष्ट है किप्रदर्श पी 160 की प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट के अनुसरण में ठोस एवं धरातलीय
विवेचना का पूर्ण त अभाव अभिलेख से दर्शित है।
19
75- इस प्रकार मात्र सतही कार्यवाही, ftlesa साक्ष्य लेना एवं दस्तावेज
संकलित करना ही समुचित विवेचना का अंग नहीं माना जा सकता तथा
विवेचना के तहत उत्पादन, विक्रय, परिवहन एवं शेष स्टाक के भौतिकसत्यापन के बिना पूर्व दस्तावेजी आकडों जिनके सबंध में दर्शित मेजरमेंट
प्रक्रियागत कारणों से समुचित नहीं होना विवेचना में पाया गया, के आधार परयह स्पष्ट है कि प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट के पश्चात वास्तविक रूप से विवेचना के
तहत किसी भी स्थिति का भौतिक सत्यापन न होने से मात्र दस्तावेजी आकडोंके 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 कोईबयान नहीं लिया गया था, तब उक्त स्थिति स्पष्ट करती है कि विवेचक व्दारा
अपनी 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 क्वाटरली स्टाकमेजरमेंट के 15 दिन के भीतर ओवर बर्डन रिमूवल कार्यवाही की गयी। इस
प्रकार जहां ओवर cMZu रिमूवल कार्यवाही के संबंध में डाटा प्रस्तुत नहीं कियागया, तब यह स्पष्ट है कि अभियोजन ने यह निर्धारित करने का प्रयास नहीं
किया कि वास्तव में संबंधित माईन्स में कितनी जगह खाली हुई , जिसकेआधार 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 न्यासभग 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 ट्रिप
20कार्ड 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 सिद्वातका लाभ अभियोजन को नहीं दिया जा सकता। साथ ही प्रकरण की
परिस्थितियों में भी उक्त उपधारणा आरोपीगण के विरूद्ध किये जाने हेतु स्थितिअभियोजन के पक्ष में प्रमाणित नहीं है।”
24. From perusal of observations made by Special Judge (CBI) vide judgment
dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) 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 by granting benefit of
doubt to the accused persons has acquitted them. 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, order, instructions, etc. or not and the same is being
conducted under the service Rules & Regulations. Nature, dimensions / field of
charge (s) of both the proceedings are also not one and the same, therefore,
objection raised by the petitioner, that 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 continuation of departmental enquiry initiated against the
petitioner is well within the premise of law.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant
petition, hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
26. Consequently, stay granted by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 also
stands vacated. No cost (s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
AMIT
Digitally signed
by AMIT
Judge
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2025.07.09
11:19:06 +0530
21
[ad_2]
Source link