HIGH COURT OF JUDtCATURE CHHATTI8GARH: B1LASPUR SIN©LEBB4CH: HON'BLE SHRILC. BHADOO.J WmTPETITION N0.1790 OF 2003 PETITSONBR I^E?' RESPONDENTS e ~\r. 1. 2. Arun KuniarSliiilda, aged aboyt 57 years, jSoiioflate Shri K.P.SIuikla, Working as Chief Gjeneral Manager, j Hasdeo Area of Soufh Easteni Goalfields Liiaited, District-KorbafCIiMattfegarfa), Sbuth Ea^tern Cojalfelds Umited, throughi^s Ch^irmaii--cuiii- Maoagiiig Dirc^tor, Seepat Road, BUaspur, 1Distt: Bilaspur (Cihhattisgarh). i Oeutral C^alfield^ Lixaited, Darbhan^a House, Raaehi (Bihax^ Tlirough ^ts CIhaipniart-cyia- Managuig Directoir. POST FOR ORDER QN 29th Jply, 12003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^..^^^.^•^.... HIGH COURT OF^UDICAT^RE CHHATTISGARH: BtUS^PUR /t^l:'!:.•::._,. ^ WmT PBTITION N0. 1790 OI12003 PETITIONER ;N^:; €. -^ ^,';- ^\'^. - Versiisj- RESPGN0ENTS Ai^ Kiim^ Shukila, aged^^^^^^^^^ 57 y^aia, Sonoflate SIi^ K.iP.Shukla,Workmg|asOiief General M^a^er, Ma^ Soufh Easjtera (ItoatSeljsds^^^^^^ District-K©rba(©l3|aattisgai^ South Ea^ra CIto^Ifielcls^^^^^ tbirt>ugh its Chaj^^ M^agiag Direetoij, SieepatRoad, .Bilaspur, iDistt: Bilaspur lattisg^rti);. i Centrat C^aIfieMsl^mite^ DaAIiaag^ House| Ra3ichi(Bihar^ TInx>ug]i i^s Chabrma^ Mtoiagiiig jDirector, OjRDriR (Passed on^jA.July, 20G|3) BT Justice L. C. Bhadoo 1. By fhis petition under Article 226/2 India the petifiouer haa challeu^d t7 of fhe Goustitution of |iie jissuao^e of Charge- sheet No.CCL.Yig.703/3969 dated 2^.03|20Q3 by respondent }: 1 •' . . ! No.2.'i ! ; '• . -• ' : • ! • - . :.\.- • \\ \ 2, The petitfoner's petition is thM^^h^ of Coal ;1 • : I ; .'. : i India 1^^ H'::;' 1 1::'.; 'J. was pix)mof€d as Geueral Manager^^^® ^ : •" 1 l:p: ';t 20.11.1993. Hejoined Girden Aijea 1©n1 10.9.1996 and ! i . ;' . :.^ .; ' '' .'' ^.': '.'- remamed tiiere up to^^^^^^^^^^ as Gene^^ M i'' •' ! .;• ' • '"•-.•'•. . ^^'•( •: . • • . ' Subsequenti^ tewas piDiaofed as C^^ order dated 13th November, 1997 aad| il he is cqntii|ai!ig^^^^to work as sucli on varfous posts, TIi^^^^^^^^^^^ .l':.:.l^lli."i^; career aM i'.:^..;i..:i;i^-'-^.';.^ outstandmg perform^ .;__..[1 SRBlS18iiiffi ISilllitiiNAS^ sa^as lil!! i!"^ !11 : 1 I; JU- i:. s;. ! '^ ^" '^^ 3. :Sif!SS^&S& li:11%S®IS!EBBSIHJil BBS proniottoiis werc^^^ ^ When he joio^ci at Girijdih •',1:1::.:' . -;: •'i.1';. Arca ofCeutral Coalfields Umited on 10^^ was totally new to that area^ is an isidependent subsidiaiy Compaiiy aojd has Board of Directprs which consists J qf ChaiTiiiaii-c^m-Maiiagmg, Director (I^rsoniiel), Director j (FmaiK'e), D&'ector (T^ctiisiica}) eN, Dircctor i. - i'; • •-;1^ _v (Peraounel) is complete JIncha^ iucludmg appomtiiwM, pstomotion, treisisfer, welfarc etc. TIie Dircctor (PersouB^lI pinposed fcr eaga^ aii 'l ^ • 3 . '-•}•.. . :• '^'; • • ;; :' , •• ;•.'. .. . ' .. 1 • '.':;:- ^; .•'.t eniptoyee on teniporary txasis fo look ^fter tlie | Rest House at Jayanti Coal Mmes/ShnB,K. Rcy^^^^^ 7/10,1996 foremployii^njttotookafterthejo^ .\ ^ " i :, ' • ^:' •• ' .' .\] : • : • ? • • ' .: • ^ . .- On the direction aod approval Qf DiTeGt^r (Persqunel| Shri B, K, Roy was given contract work CCTI a con^olidated rcmun^ration of Rs.2500/- per month for a perio^ of six months. The ,:1 petitiouer bemg totalfy u^ to work umler tlie supervision aiKi mstruGtfoiis of E)trec|tor (Perspnnel). Any disobedience of sucli directions/ mstnictions would have amounted to mi3conduct, Th^ petitioD^r m|srel^ complied with fhe mstru^tbns of the Dircctor (Pers©nnel)ia the matter of il- ^ ;'.:.. l' ' '':''-'" engagcsiieisl of Shri B,K. Roy ou con^ iDasis. Siibsequently fh^ petifctoner came to know tMat Shii |B,K{Koy{ was brother of -l • . l ?'; l ' '-.••.:';:; • '•" ;• the fhen Director (Personnel}. Directt)r (Rei^JQUii.el) wrote a lett€rdatedl8&Marchl997|approvin^ B. K. Ray for a furtlier period of six nionfh{%,^ © of said directiou, oider dated 4^ petitioner ^&ex^by extericlang tte perK?d 'll^'1!1.'! Rcy for six mo2iA ^a| i3S^|ie(i by the ofQoiltfact of Shri B.K. rt •{> t:^j-^. 1311 :^', ^ te ® operations of fhe said transit caoip in as imich as HD fiirther «•• extensionwould be given thereafter, The petitioner was traMsferred fioni the Gindih Are;a on 6th .'May, 1997. :' •: ,. :'j ^. ' • •• ., ; ^1 . , '; ;: :• i • • ' 1 . ' ..• :.: . ' Subsequently for fhe re tlie ofiicers coucem^d, Shri H, N. JIi^, Stajff DflScer (F), ^iiMiIi Area moved for regularizatton of Shri B,K. Rc)y aild SlarijS.^ KIaera, tite then Chairmaii, CCL, Rairchi gave jreguMr JappOiiitaieD.t iii favour |of Shri B,K, R€^. Tl petitioi^r riever recomirien^ Shri B, K, Roy for regular apppnifnieir lefter for regularizattorL jTh^ concerl^d au^^ i ' \ cou^idered ti action c^ tlie petitbn^r to bei^ misconduct for violatiqn ofaiiy law; nites or regulatio3|is whatsoever, , nbr did he issued aay A dufy coustitiited Departmental Prpmotion Committee appiDv^d the promotfoii of tiie petitiGiner to Itie post of Ghief General Manager aiid he was proxiioted ^ sucli ni the CCL w.e.f 13th November 1997. The petidoner submits that by vntu^ of pK)niotk>n of the peti}tk)uer as Ctsjief Gerieral Maiiager, Biisconduct if aoy would be deemed t©hajve bjeen waived ofby the mauageiaent, j | ; i On 15th June, 2001 aP.I.R.AnDfixurfcp/!4waslodged by the G. B. I. agamsf the petition.er, Shri S. <D. NUera the then CMD, CCL, Raaclii, Dr. S,S, Roy tlie th^n ©ireGtor|F^rsbi^ Shri H.N.Jha, the then Staff Offieer, CG: aUeged misuse of powers. The C.B.I. / aiid Shri B.^ for ^miuired into tiie matter aiid found that theaction ofjt^ i dischai^ of his duty as jper dircctiol "r; i (Personnel). Tte C.BJ, tlierefore, nl^vec ia bf fhe Director :}^:- '• iJ.J:^j.J.i.;'^T'';;-i..1"'-^ givmg paidon to fhe petition^ :1 . 1 ^-•.. 'l. ail ^plication for iijj.'il1 JiiHII '^- ^ 8. Ranchi vide order dated 13th May, 2003 granted pardon to tte petitioner aiid inade hiin approver/ GivMg p^a^ ofapprover ajiiDunts to discharge ofa peraoria3 haa in A.I.R. 1954 S.C.|616. Afier giying the panlon by tfae C.B.I. as weU as by the Court, the petitiDuer casinp^^ an accused, As per tljie Vigilance Maiiual iof Ceii^^ Commissibn, whichl is a^plicable iii the i^spondenf/coiapaiiy, during asi iiivestigation j if pardon is grailted then Central Vigilance Couiniission ]wiU sefcid their recomiliendafebns rcgardmg graut of iminunity to sUch person froni departmental action or punishinent The petlfcibner is a seuior ofik'e of ftie Coal Industry h^ was entifled for consaderafck>n as Dircctor (Techuica!) aad ehairniaii-cum-Managiiig Dii^ctor of Siibsidiary CompaBy, After 2001|, several junior officers ha^e beeu selected by the Pujblic Ei4erprisesj Selectiou Boanl for bemg appouited asjDircctor offh^ Cdal Iiidustiy but fhe nanie of the petifcioner was jnot considered ior selcctiou aiid appoiataieut as fh^ Director/CMD because ofth.e peDden^y of tlie case, even though ftie petitkaierjwasi totalty mnocent aml ;1 ' ] -' ^ • .'• •• . acted ajccording to th^ dii^ctk5n&|of Dr, S,S, Roy in. fhe inatter of grant of contTect appomtmbnt | to tShri B.K, Roy, the '] : ; petittoner has been madej to siiffer for no faalt on his part, The petittonerwas surpnsedto i^ceive ftie ehai^e sfaset dated ^- i 26th March, 2003 calUng upon Mim |x5 siabmit his reply as to 1/- • J- why he should uot be proeeeded tfbr tlie alteged misconduct It is fhereforc prayed that| this petitfoHj^^i^^ allowed qu^hmg fhe alleged chai^e sheefl dated 36.3.2003 aad further issue appropriate writ or oixter hol^!ing thM m view of the f 1 promotiou as weU as the pardou grairted by^^^t^ petitiouer is eutitled for appointoient as Director, 9, The retam has beeu fi]ed on belialfofthe rcspoiideuts whercm fhey have meutiou^l fhat the petitiosier should have approached the High (pourt at Ranchi becaiise the misconduct comiaitted by fh^ petitiouerjwaa umler^^^t^ offhLat Highl Court aud the C, B.I. case h^s also beeu iastitiited at Rajichi. The Charge sheet has also jbeen issued froiri Raiichi, fherefore the Ranchi High Cpurt is the only Higli Court haviiig jurisdictfon to eutertani sujch writ jpetitfonj, The disciplmaiy proceedmg is tfue mtemal matter bet^eeu the employer and its employee and HXj Coijirt o^ rule unless principle of natiiral justixse is violated, caa talffijaway tMe right of the Disciplinary Airthority to take disciplinary a^ptk5u agamst its ening employee for siiiscondjuct comimtted by him m^ of duty cnjonied upou him by liis enipl^yer. /Hiere is no provision of law einpoweruig the Court of stay dep|artnieutal proceediB.gs ftierely becaiise crlmiaal prosecutiQn ofth|e saaie person is launched ni a court of law, The purpose af two proceedm.gs is quite different While the object of d^partBieMt^ to ascertam violatton of duties aiid] obligatipns cast upon asi employee under various service coBdifens aoxl ajctiou to be 11 : ! h:.; ' '1' taken for such miscondudt, criisimal j pro^ecutiou confmes itself to only such criniinat acts f|iat are jcoinniitfed by ao. eniployee. Bofh of fhem operate ia ifc^o I dis&ict aiixi difereut fields aad as such can proceed ^imuItaiieoHsly, TIw said eugageinent/ appoiBtment of Shri B,K was irregular iDiriagiiig allj tiie setljtledj Jnorms/F^lijcy of fhe Company. The confention of the ipetNoiKr that the^ y,^s- ': ^ IE i:i:^il ";Hi:.-l:; w ^ 1; ^ ^ ^lli E ^ Departaient waive^ after givmg hioi pro^ Maaa^r is misconcei^d^^^^^^^^^^^ service by^^^ to tlie (Iligher pGst, doje the Departiiient^^^^^^ 1 • . ^: ^ . •'• / :: : :'..^..'-:,-'^ ;. •'.'\'i'.':;:'':' •'.-.' '.::;1.-:';.' '; '•'^\.. theeinployeefor^^ retiremeiit, Sisice ^ t;::..:':;I^CI''.:'lli';lil;:^^ rccoianiended to tlie CVG 1;'::'. ••., ;"! ''-'•.-'••^'^;1':'-' ': ;• ^^•'-'•^•i '^i '^•': petitjioner from depai^ eritltjled for mimui^^ It wa^s Bof tllie Direcjtor (Ffera the petiNo>uer himse^ 1 • ' ' [. •:^^ .,.',.. ^j :. .. .r -;;•;• :.j on teBiporary basis, The iiofe shfee^ wa^ persbiially caiTied tb ii-.:;-1 •:l';.''':\''l'' •^'./•.l:/i ^ ^::^.^:-:-'^.:f^.;:' '•,•• ':, tlie Du'ector (Ftersonnel} Dr. S,S, Rc^ l^.::.- .^.;.'^ll -'' /il'^^ 6.9.96 signedbyiilieePM/TStpDi^ whioh coutaiaed fh^ j appiDvat of person on ad faocj bas^ Iias • j^1-'' comiEiitted miscomliict, The petitioner |sept tl3|e papers ia liis owujcustody withputjdocl^tm^ ^w^- coutmi^ lus sei^ice] fro^ coHipeteiito3xier,TheDrder|of€xtGiiJsi^ Ftom the peirisat^^^^o has Bot^^^y^ ^del^c^dijait^ ti^ engagesla^io^ of one siich tliat he Iiad set fbrtliall the ^rouud appoint3iient of SIiri B.K.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^R :r Therefore tlie petit^^ ^ fbjrlco3afv€f4ia^tte 10.: ^/I';ha^,JheaM:Mr.:'fM,L.^:<iJaisNal,^Se^ G^^I^ feil tlie petiti<^ withjtlijei I^ ^r bfcltljism^ied, 1 to reg a^pQiaAmeiit, •i.- w ^s^|iMl^nt|, sj SeHi^rcounseI i::^r1' !%i:l;'.XI ;1; !i!:ii'! il^' ^ ^. 11. Mr. Jmswal argued fhaf after graiitm pardou to fhe petitioner he staoxis discharged from the cr^ this submission he relied iipon fhe judgm^^ Court i^ported ta ft^ case pf A. J, Fteiris V^. State of Madra^ reported mA.I.R. 1954 .S.C. 1616 mwhidiithasbeenheldthattlie Biofas^nt tl panlon was temlercd! to tKe accused fae inust be presunied to ha^e been dischargedwlier^ anlaccused and be^anie a wifcsiess, It oouldi^^^^^^l^ said fhat beforc tenxiermgj the partiou fo Miin; Ke had not been dischargeci. II 12. The other submissiQnof team^ ^ouusel jfor the petitioner is that tlie alk^d action of jth^ petitiouer was cdniiriite th^ year 1997 aad fh^ rcsporident^deipartmeiif alir^ had not mitiated I aoy | departiiiental ax^ the petitioner aiid after graiiting of the paidon to fhe petitionerb^ tha competeut Court fhe rcsporsdejnts jhaye nD rigM to proceed agauist fhe petitfoubr onj the ba^is ©fftie iinpugned chai^e sheet On the ground of delay ti^ chargeJslieet is liable fo be quaslied which has beeu issued ^ifhjiilterioi; Biotive and just to ensurc that the petitioiK subniifted fhat the laaiii perso^ imrolvted ia ti^ appoinfaient of Shri B. K. Roy was tfa^ Director (PersoiiD^l) SIiii S.S, Roy on wl^)se recoiamendation aiid appi^al^ ffhat too on cont^ basis Shri B,K. Roy was appoioledl Dr, S. S. Roy. Moreover, only fheij . Shri B, K, Roy is brother of petitaonjer jMas been siagkd outaad no charge sheet hjas beenlissuGd^^^ petifctonerbeiagsubordin^toBri dared to refuse the direc^ns^^^^^ 1:1- t'^l::^7 :;:'r.:^^1'^ '• ;: ha^e aiiaounted to disobet^ S,S| R<|>y he cdu^^^^i^ '^'••- ^ 1 ir:'"' \ •M\}'- •141: .ili ^jj'i'ij ::1- 5 l-^:1* ^N' ^fe'^ 14. benefited or obtaiaed aay over tliere was no nialdfide on fhe part of ftie petitioner becaiise out of tiiaf apipomtment he was iiot personally personal gaiii tliei^ferc DX> riialafMte can be jmiputed to fhe petitioner^^^^^^^^^L^ petitiouer relied itpou a judgnient of €lie Apex C36urt ia tiie caae of Stafe ofMadhjy^ Riade^ Vs, Ba^ rcDortediin A.I.R. 1990 S0 1308 m whuih it tiasibeen held that fhe disciplmaiy proceedmgs-delay amud lac^s- xiepartment aware o|f mvolYenient oi officer m aBeged irregu^^ satisfactoiy explaiiatton &>r uiordiuate! charge riiemo ~ disciplmajiy proceediugl delay ia issuiiig the ioitiafed agaiast hioi after inore thaii 12 yeara 4 liotol^ to be q^iaBhed, 13. As far as the prcliiaiiiaiy obje0t^ Nair has iwt agitated tlii^ poinf. Even (^fh.eiwtee fhe petitioner is posted withm fhs jurisdictioii of this Respondent No, 1 j^ also at Bilaspur thei^forelia View of the above I aai of tiie opiaioD. tihat the Court, ih.e office of the prellmmary objectfou regaidnig the jurisdiction offhis Court ls not corrcct, A perusal of Annexurc P^5 onier date|l 13,5 2003 passed by fhe kamied Special Jisxlge, G.BJ, Rjaiiclu SJMWS that th^ petitioner has been graiited jpardoii section 306 ofthe Cr.P.C. after taldn^ onl 1315.2003 zmder his! statemeiit and in that order it ha^ been menttoned that tfae ^tition^r "has^^^^^ 1^;:1 his statement supportmg prosecutioiij case aiid specifically stated tiiat under the mflueiKte of fhej fhe then Director of CCL he IIiad ap|x5i^^ ii-li '^ becaiise he liad onl^ of Slm S.S, Roy wfaD Iiapp€iied to be Iiis brother.^^^T this petitiDrier Anin Kum^ Ua9 it |s obyious 1^ jnlaxle stafenieut i. ggj^lt; |^.g;|^:-^I IB^i..^13it''i:ll'1 M fe lj:l! !; N1 .rv." relatmgto tl^^^f^ have been (lirectly CQimerii^d^ w covered ia tlie case^^^^^ rclatmg to sam^ ari<i^^^^^^ t^ commissioffl of tli^ olfence,! UiMierJsu^ satisfied that the evidenc^ of^^ A^ ^enejficial add help i^ 16. tlie oj&nce covered mj tliis caae,^ T^ In^ rccoBiniended for gilao.tmg hini IpanlGH j asid^ liiex^ tlie p^tstaDner has becoiite a jdepar^ ,1 decisioii of the Ape^c Court aftei^ grao^tiiiig jjpa^ the .:1:'':::;1 :.l';l:"'::u. ;."' I1 :.i^^ 11;.''' petitaoner he stai^s jdi3cl^^ fi^m jtli^ JGriliiijba a£l^ criiriio^alprQceedingst^ 15, j A pGnisal of fhe tetter dated 21st Supdt. Of Pblice, CBI/AClB/RaacM t|Q^^^^ Maoagmg Director,^^^^ (^ House, Raiichi sliows that tlie j^etit|3i^r Iias becQme^^^^^^l^ pros€Gutk)Hwiti^ss as he^^^^B J.^;'..':l circiamstaB£les cQHtmuaiic^^^^^ JuJy 2Q03 wrttten by the agaiiist Shn Shukla for tlie in accordaisce witli ^he basic ten^ts of I^, aiid^ ii^ fiirtlier nieii^iied that you^^^^^^^a^ Meiiioraiidziin, issued agam recoiiiBlen^ed DDt to recons&ler^^^^ sasii€cfcaj^as dfoes i^ -;'.'.:. J-^i/,.':!:}:;'':::11:'^'.'.:,:^ afercsaid developments^ a -1^.:!1.;':1-'''^^^1^:1'^ '^ i-'.t wifh tew. Even in view of the afoo^ j let|er the^ C.B.I ha& lf-J-'l.--.''.-\.'i -.-:;: Shn Sfa|ikla la pte Ught^^^^o^ ch4%Nlsl:l^NS^^^ pefitioner, As ^ a^ fhe 1^^^^^^ 6 departmejatal p to^_ vi 111 10 y^ y opio.ions tliat against any pubUe servaiit criimnal ease as welt as departiii^utal proceediixg caa go fogether^ aad tliere is no bar id pnx^eeding against pubUc servaiit iii a degartmental enquiry, But^ the Hon^le Apex Co^ 1-'.'' •i:^;\-. .'•: :.^.^;S.^'.:.''' ^'-/ Pau! Anthoay Vs. BliaraA l<^>ld Mines LCd. aad aaothCT rcporfedm (1999) ? SCG 679 J has bel<l that if the departinental proceedirigs aB^ fhe^^^^c ikleatical aad siinilar set ofl facts it ^iepaTtaieirfcaI proceediiigs tiU conctubion of the crisiiiaal case and if the eiirplo^e isj fouud not giki^ his Iionour may be . '' .. . • 1 ! - 1 : ' i . .;: :.i:^ ^ ; '::.' •..•. .- vii^icated and m case ^ ^ " ; / ••1.' • ', ' ' '.. '' -1 -; '1' ' •i'- ' •; . • i • .•' ' ; '^•1.. t. /' •' -.'.1:' '.'• •'.;/-' . . •• get rid of him at tiiie eajrUest ^here t33£ departaieutal 1 ' • :1 :1 ^ : .l:il proceediiigs is based QH identical sejt of facts aad wh^re the persoB is acqiittted Uy a Ijudicial •j findmgs fhat offeuce i^ iiot pnwed il is desirable to st^ the prcmoiijucenient wifh. a wojald fee uiyust^ unfair and ratlier opprcssive fo altow the firidio.gs i^ccmled at the ex- I- ! : ; 1 .! . parte deparfcQientaI proceedulgs to staiixi. j | ::1.;. J' 17. Iu the present case also the ofience for whicli ciimm.ai case is ;s:'.. i;.'; .('i'''i^ pendmg as well as thie basis of deBartmpulM e33quiiy ^^ •t \ .!. •I; i .'"- l sasiie. Both.actions are basejd ou idlenti^ ai]d sin^^ of facts. When fhe petitioner has been granted panlou fhat amounts fe dischai^ aii^ liad not isiitiated l'^:/- 1:. :.;'/'"-.. aiiy disciplmaiy action agaiast the j petiitioner &^ st?c :i. ni'1. '. years, by tt^ Court, that too he ha^ been s|o.glecl out as the 11 '• JT:^ I. oth^r persons iiivolved in & Iias jnof been chai^e sheeted. The petitioner faas jbeco23ie oider to pix)ye ofifeiice agaiast bt^ i:':i 'l deriartitieiifalwit^ ia li:'^!:'^'.^ accu^ed, tlierefere, ia all fairaess on & .l..l:'11t^:i..^.^:^l;L::^: to cQiitniue with^^^^^t^ II El: 18 I '-;i ^. III. Ui II!!| fll ::<1 M .^' ^;"^~ lookmg to the part playeci by fhe petitioD.er in the matter of appointiiienf of Shri B,K, Roy who is brotibier of Director (Ftersoni^l) Dr, S. S, | Roy aad on whose mstniction aml appipval the petitton^r appointed Shri B, K, Roy on contract 1 • . ':- 'i:;; :.''":':- -i:': •. •: ':"• •r^ ::..- basis, Therefore, m ^iew of the above, confinuairce of^^t^ depairtiiiental enqu^ is UDJust, uufair aad jopprcssive aetk>*L of the rcs^Guctenta for the foUowmg i reasons:- I (^ j That the pardbn has alre^dy becn graMed to t^ petitiouer in fhe cruiiiiial ca; pn>secutfon witaess aJBd the ^ardoii Iias been granted fo fhe petitMuer oii tiid grouud i evidence offeiice agaimst offl- casi be proved. |The departm^iit caiiDpf take tvro stai^ i • . ' . .. ' sioiuttaDLeouslyiLe. on the oifie haodj tMe petittoner wtUl support fh^ departmieut in pi: e aiid Iie Iias becoine tlie fhat oh tfae basis of his ;r isiain accuseci persons pseputi^n case for provisig fhe offeuce agaiiist tlie niabi accused jpersons aaxl ou ttie 1 i[':l'.:il: other harid after taki^g this foeimM fhe^^^d^ also waats fo proceed with fhe de^arfuiental eiiquiry agaiast fhe petitioner Therefore ui tllis situation fhe department caanot be aUowed to jtake tw<^ staiids. (i^ Th^ atleged actron ofjthe pptipouer was^^^c^ year 1997 aiid it is iiot U]^ | th^^^^ respoiidents were not aware about the allegedj acliion M^^ that the alleged miscondiicll cajjae^^^^^^fe oftlie : 1 i:' respoudents ou a ^ter st^e. JTheJ i^spQndenfs^^^^^ w sleepmg for about 6 years laadj ;],.^ ,1; •:\.',^ ^lrcady beeu graiitect to t^ perinitted to contiiiHe w^^ |wh|en ^ diseipliiiaiy proceednigr 12 ^. M ^"<; Thakur i(ii^ that too he has t>een smgled out as against fhe ofher mabi persous isivol^ed in the niatter no disciplmaiy enquiry has been mitiated. The Biain person behiad tfais episode appears |to be Mr/ S,S, Roy^^^b atkwed to rctire peacefdlly without aoy stigma on his jcareer withDut aiiy departmciital enquiiy. J ' . 1 ;.,:11'T The C.B.I. vidteitsj letterjdated i 21.7.2003 has f Irccomnieuded to the Chairniait-cuni-Maiiagi^ lof the respoudent/aompaiiy that Jfhe d^ciptiiiaiy Iproceednigs agaijiist Sjliri Shuikla ft>r $the Same charge does uot seeia toj be inj accordgiiee witli the basic tenets lof law, This action of departtaient af a belated stage seems to be mitiated atfh^ cn^ial^^^s tiie petttioner just |to deb^r tfae ! petitiouer from consideratton forl pi^motk^H. (iv) ^fore over fhe staad of tt^ p- beiag subonliiiate of Dr, S,S. with the directions m iappomA ofDr. S.S, Roy. :titioD€r|is clear-cut that Roy he siaiply coniplied 18. In •the result, I ain of tlie opiiuou BientioB^d fa^rein above it will Ibe tliatj for the i^asons uajust, unfair, and opprcssive qua A petitbner, to allow tte rcspondents to coutmue witfa the (lepartBiental enqi^iTy ^gaiiistthe petitioner, Thertforc, tlie petitk>ii is all^ ilie iinpugued ehar^- sheetdt. 26.3,2003 is quashed, Hpwever, j fh^ otlier reMeis sougM by the petitioner are rqected,} Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^.i \ ^ '^