l la b,A ¥ IN THE HONOUWLE CHHA’ITISGARH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR wan PEnHON No. n3 /2om. (WRIT PETlTlON UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF YHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) Gorelal S/O Ramadheen, aged about 35 ETITIONER: x years, Cast: Gond, R/O Ompur colony, Rajgamar, Tah & Disl: Korba, ChhaHisgarh. I Versus Respondemsz / m . Inquiry Officer/ Personnel Manager, Korba Area of SECL, Tah & Disl: Korba, C.G. \ 9w Ofwek Sevrawy/ “ State of Chhcmisgarh Through Pnhee—~ W w'bym Is. $W/'b4§,,w)g¢_ We? w Nwgw/wf . 0m; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. \€I\iH~ IIQ[\' \ Soulh Eastern Coalfields Limited, Direclor, SECL il’s Chairman cum managing Chhallisgarh. I“ HQ, Seepai‘ Road, Bilaspur, W,»>;:§ \ Tahsildar, Kerba, KATsweM. Dist: Korba, Chhafiisgarh. ifhgf/TSV mW/jk’ “I ‘ “”{uoA u : Colliety, / Dy. Korba General Area of Manager, SECt, Tah Rajgamar & Dish Korba, C.G. i XI—HC-22 10.3.2004. Petitioner by Shn‘ K.K.Najk, Advocate. Respondents No. 1 to 4 by Shn‘ R.S.Jaiswa1, Advocate r The petitioncr has prefe this writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of ndia with the prayer that the enquiry proceedings conducted by the pondent No‘4 in compliance of the directions dated 16.6.2000 issu d by the respondent No.2 be stayed and to also stay the suspension Ider dated 22.8.2001 passed by the mspondent No.3. The petitionefs case is th t he is an employee of the Rajgamar Colliexy of Korba area of S.E.C. He is ‘Gond’ by caste, he married with a inter~caste lady belongin to other community. He resides with his family in Ompux‘ colony of Rajgamar Colherv One employee of Rajgamar Colliery Hetram Sah attempted to commit rape on the applicant’s Wife, themfoxe he de a complaint before the outpost Rajgamar of Police Station—Kerb and a case under section 354 of the I.P.C. was registered against tram Sahu. The parents of the petitioner wele vexy much poor sons belong'ng to viHage-Chaitipur, Tahsil- Katghora, they were ing the jobs in the house and agxicultuxe helds belonging to Late Bahadur Chandra of village— Kashigarh, Disttict— Janjgir a. The father of the petitioner late Ramadheen Gond died at early age. Themafter Bahadur C din beitig'a kind person maintajn the petitioner alike his sons, he also arranged for the m 'age of the petin'onet in his own community with \a girl belongin to a veiy poor family belonging to s . a e r o C p e XI—HC—22 Chandra community. Certmcat pertaining to paternity, cas'te am! domicile have been $ed as An P/ 1. Later on due to poverty an other problems the peu'tioncr turned back to his native place and working as contiact labour in various colliories of Kusmund and Gevera area of S.E.C.L. At Chainpur fhg pet'iioner’s family having fzw pieces of land Whir‘h wele acquired by the S.E.C.L. es therefore being a dependent the pctin'oner was provided with co pcnsatory appointment in lieu of the said acquiied lands belonging't his family. The petitioner was later posted in Rajgamar Colliery Wh he is posted till date. Hetiam Sahu who attemp d to commit rape upon the wife of the petitioner, after regstration the criminal case in order to forcibly obtain compmmise in the said rimiual case, by all mans nied to haiass the petitioner and his family members msulting in the cireumstance that the petitione was forced to change his quarter. i After failing in obtaining comp mise in the said criminal case said Hetram misguided and obtained false certihcate nom his brother-in- law who was Sarpanch of 111a e-Kashigarh and themafter he made false complaint against the petitioner. Themafner Kusmunda Police registered a c ‘ inal case against the petitioner which is pending till date and on the basis of the said false complaint made regairling his caste, birth and paternity etc. with the Respondents No. 2 and 3. Hetram Sahu somehow managed the respondent No.2 in his favour who not only threatened the petitioner but also without having any light and authority to do so duected the Respondent No.3 to take /.rh disciplinaiy action against the peFtioner. n e‘ s ' e XI—HC-22 mm mm enquiry is being conducted and the legal pn‘nciples settled by the Ho‘ ’ble Supxeme Court is being violated by the department. Return has been med on 4 in which it has been mentio suppxession of material facts italse allegation against the iesp [himself before the mspondcnts t1 ‘Gond’ by caste and requested Loader. His name for employme Th: Respondent No.3 bein§ the Respondent No.2 not on1§ 22.8.2000 but also immedia suspension. Accouiing to the set the pendency of the criminal - patiiioiler is facing criminal pmc of Cfime No. 469/99 mgarding other hand departmental en the Respondent No.2 for the supposed to disclose the defen e in departmental enquiry which is available to him in the V g innuenced by the direction given by issued show cause notice dated tely placcd tled law departmental enquiry timing proceedings should be stayed. The jeeding arising out of the registration same nature of allegations on the is also pending on the diieoiions of allegau'on and the petitioner will be the pe‘itioner under c' ‘ departmental enquiry is bad in confened to the petitioner petiu'oner submitted all the do his/innocence, but because of th illegal and arbitrary dilections of the Respondent No.2 the departme Bhan Singh as land oustee agaiTst the Land Khata No. 338, Khasra 1 matter, therefom conducting and is total violation 'of the rights r the Constitution of India. _The nts and certihcates, which pmiie alf of the Respondents No. 1, 3 and that the petition has been nled on hum his cause title and by making ents. The petitioner misrepresented tat he is son of Late Ramdeen who is tor an appointment on the post of nt was nominated by one Chandra q ' c n ‘ n o e a ‘e e h ‘t d V XI-HC-22 4 No, 720/6, axea 0. 18 decimal being acquixexi by S.E,C,L. On the' basis of the aforesaid submissions the petitioner was appointed as Piece Rated Loader being a land ouster: of Gavera ama vidc lattcr dated ‘ 4.3.1994 and was posted at Rajgamar Colliery. At the time of appointment the petitioner submitted false certidcate of céste— Gond, Resident of — Chainpur, Haldi Ba’zar, Tahsil— Katghora. The appointment of the of chalacter and antecedents. 16.6.2000 intimated that the peti S/o Bahadur Chandra, Caste- C Kashirgarh, RS. Jaijaipur, Tahsil the petitioner has misrepresented the S.E.C.L. and haudulently obtained employment by committing mischief and producing Mse documents showing that he is son Bah/adur Chandm. The petitioner submitted false ahidavit and te therefore a report was lodged which is reg‘stered at Crime No. the chaiges levelled against him Patwari who confirmed that Gorelal Village- Chainpur and he has e and domir‘ile cern'dcates impersonating himself as son of Ramadeen Gond for seeming 'on has been initiated against the sued on 29.8.2000 and the enquiry enquiry during the pendency of e stayed. The petitioner petitioner was subject to verihcation The S.D.M. Katghora vide letter dt. "oner’s real name is Gorelal Chandra ahu and he is msident of Village- and District— Janjy'r Champa. Thus of Ramadheen whemas he is son of domicile certihcate and caste against him at P.S.r Kusmunda 469/99 whelein he has confesse The enquixy was conducted by th Chandra was never residing fraudulently obtained the employment. The disciplinaiy ac petitioner. The charge sheet was i criminal proceedings should not has made J37 c a t mm . .....................................W 200 ..............................................m ................................................ We! Watts man-W adamant! 4 _ _, mmee‘am \ aafawm ‘ XI—HC-ZZ man W Tahsildar — Katha as Respondent No.2 though the land in qu'est'on is situated at viDage-Chainpur, h comes under the jurisdiction of S.D.M. KatghOIa. The S.D.M. tghora vide lettcr dated 16.6.2000 intimated that the petitioner’s mal name is Gorelal Chandra S/o Bahadur Chandra, Caste- C R/o Village — Kashirgarh, P.S. Jaijaipur, Tahsil and Disin'ct— . anjgir Champa. As the petitbner haq - misrepmsentgu and obtained a pointment on the basis of falsc and forged documents themfom the ctition may be dismissed. ' I have heard leamed coun Learned counsel for the petm''oner submitted that since ~a criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioner on the same facts therefore the departmental enquiry should not be a‘lloWed to be continued. If the same is allowed to continue then he will be required to disclose his defence and that will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and that he will not caseproperly. On the other hand Mr. l for the parties. e in a position to defend the criminal . S. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 arg d that the departmental enquily is already complete and nnal 0rd ,r is pending decision because of the - stay granted by this Court. Therefore, there is now no question arises for, the petitioner for disclosing the defence as the departmental enquiry has already been (completed. He submitted that the departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings are disn‘nct proceedings and the departmeLtal enquiry should not be stayed. In this connection he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1996) 16 S.C.C. 417 (State of Rajasthan Vs. W 'c a h u ‘ XI-HC—22 V mm W 200 m . -gv ww @m éamqsném B.K. Meena and othsrs). In para that “there is no legal bar for both and then say that in ccrtain situations, it may not be ‘desimblc’; )ceed with the disciplinary enquiiy on identical charges. The staying of emphasized, m‘ a matter to be facts and circumstances of a given s can be enunciated in that behalf. above decisions as constituting a ciplinaiy proceedings is that “the case may not be prejudiced.” hedged in by pmviding anther that 7e natule involving quesn‘ons of fact L, it means that not only the charges .ust involve complicated questions of y’, ‘desimhility’ or ‘propriety’, as the {mined in each case taking into cnmstances of the case. One of the the disciplinaiy enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed un uly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high oEcials or persons holding high ublic o$ces are involved. They get bogged down onone or the 0th prompt conclusion. If a criminal c be a good ground for going aheal where the disciplinary proceeding 14 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held proceedings to go on simultaneously ‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to p11 when a criminal case is pending disciplinary pmceedings, it is determined having regard to the case and that no hard and fast The only ground suggested in valid ground for staying the di defence of the employee in the This ground has, however, been this may be done in cases of gla‘ and law. In our respectful opinior must be grave but that the case n law and fact Moreover ‘advisabili‘ case may be, has to be date: oonsideran'on all the facts and oi contending considerations is tha ground. They hardly ever reach a ‘ase is unduly delayed that may itself l with the disciplinary enquiry even :s are held over at an earlier stage. e ‘ c ' The disciplinaxy proceedings are x but to keep the administxau‘ve m bad elements. The intemst of t1 pmmpt conclusion of the disciph‘n the charges, his honour should h moment and if he is guilty, he 3110‘ to law. lt is further held that “th neant not really to punish the' guilty achinery unsullicd by getting rid of La ary proceedings. If he is not guilty of e vindicated at the earliest possible nld be dealt with promptly according appmach and the objective in the criminal pmceedings and the d‘ iplinaiy proceedings is altogether distinct and dih'erent In the disc linaxy proceedings, the quesu'on is Whether the respondent is guilty removal hem service or a lesser whereas in the criminal pwceec oh‘ences registered against him are sentence should be imposed up mode of enquiiy and the rules go rning the enquiiy and trial in both ii diderent. Staying of disciplinaxy :eedings, to Iepeat, should not be a matter of course but a considemd decision. Even if stayed at one. _. econsideration if the criminal case the cases are enmely distinct ax proceedings pending criminal ppm delinquent o$cer also lies in a "‘ f such conduct as would merit his punishment, as the case may be, ings the question is Whether the established and if established What him. The standaid of proof, the stage, the decision may require i gets unduly delayed.” In View of the above legal p0: present case in the dist instance i enquiry has aheady been oomph grudge to the petitioner as the deft now there is no question of cans the petih'oner and in the present sition if we look into the facts of the as argued by Mr. Jayaswal that the :ted therefore there should be no nee has already been disclosed and g serious prejudice to the right of c se the misconduct which has been F Thakur at he obtained employmnt based on the false certmcates and enquiry i;s to be conducted into that aspect as to Whether he obtained the emplo; and if it is found then the questio: should be awarded to the pe pmceedings it is to be examined v any 0 611¢6 or not and as to Themfore as the enquiry is alm remains to disclose the defence. In View of the above discu peu'iion which is liable to be dismi aHPged against the peh‘tioner is th ment based on the false cer%cates :1 will be that as to what punishment titioner, Whereas in the criminal rhether the petitioner has committed w t punishment should be awaxded. y complete, as such now nothing sion, I do not tind any fome in this seed and is dismissed. Sd/- L.C.BHADOO i; Judge [dew XI-HC-zz Wm w 200 W man WW WWW meanness \ h g, mmswm seesaw