Case: Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Bibhuti Kumar Singh and Others

within three months. The learned Judge made it clear that if the enquiry was not completed within three months the charges levelled against the petitioner/Respondent 1 should be deemed to be withdrawn and the entire disciplinary proceeding quashed. The learned Judge, however gave liberty to the parties to mention the matter if any cause of action arose subsequently 8. As the appellant could not complete the enquiry within the period of three months, as directed by the Court, it filed an application for extension of time before the learned Single Judge. In the application the appellant stated, inter alia, as under " (i) Pursuant to the order passed by the Honble Court as aforesaid an Enquiry Officer already appointed in July 1993 started the enquiry proceedings and as many as six witnesses adduced evidence on behalf of the respondent authorities before the Enquiry Officer (ii) Your petitioner states that there are about 28 witnesses to be examined on behalf of the respondent authorities and the said 28 witnesses are living in different villages. The respondent authorities had already taken steps to bring the said witnesses before the Enquiry Officer. Out of the said 28 witnesses the respondent authorities at present were able to produce six witnesses before the Enquiry Officer as stated hereinbefore (iii) Your petitioner states that a considerable time is required to produce all the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer (iv) Your petitioner further states that the Enquiry Officer went on leave for about 20 days on account of the marriage of his son and consequently the enquiry proceedings could not be conducted during the said period (v) Your petitioner states that due to the reasons as stated hereinbefore the enquiry proceedings could not be completed within the time as directed by this Honble Court." * 9. The learned Judge, however, rejected the application as devoid of merit, recording the following reason "It has been stated that the petitioner was suspended as far back as on 4-4-1991 and uptil now no steps have been taken save and except examination of 6 witnesses out of several witnesses. It has also been stated at the instance of the respondent Company, Coal India Limited, several adjournments are taken. It has also been indicated that on some occasions no body turned up on behalf of the Company." * 10. Against such rejection the appellant preferred a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order on the grounds that it was not maintainable and that the appellant was guilty of serious laches in concluding the departmental enquiry 11. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that having regard to the serious nature of the charges levelled against Respondent 1 and the justifiable reasons canvassed by it for not being able to complete the enquiry within the time stipulated, the High Court should have allowed its prayer for extension of time to conclude the enquiry. The appellant further contended that one of the reasons, which weighed with the High Court in refusing to grant further time was that Respondent 1 was suspended as far back as 4-4-1991 but, in fact, at no point of time, was he suspended. That apart, the appellant contended, the claim for his promotion was fully protected as a post in E6 grade was kept vacant to accommodate him in case he was exonerated from the charges 12. In response, it was urged on behalf of Respondent 1 that the departmental enquiry was initiated against Respondent 1 on flimsy and baseless allegations only to delay and, if possible, to deny him his legitimate promotion. In support of this contention strong reliance was placed upon the final report submitted by the CBI on 18-4-1994 - that is, after the High Court passed the impugned order and before the special leave petition was filed in this Court - in the case registered against Respondent 1 exonerating him from the charges levelled against him and the order of the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi Bench, dated 25-4-1994 discharging Respondent 1 after accepting the final report. The other contention based upon the report was that the appellant could not and should not be allowed to continue with the departmental enquiry as the misconducts alleged against Respondent 1 were identical to the accusations which formed the subject-matter of the case registered against him. Lastly, it was submitted that as the appellant was guilty of wilful laches and negligence in conducting the enquiry the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned orders 13. Having gone through the material placed before us we are unable to accept the contentions raised by Respondent 1 relying upon the final report, firstly, because, the misconducts and for that matter, the allegations on which they are based, are not confined to only acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known source of income. Secondly, the final report submitted by the CBI recommending discharge of Respondent 1 on the ground of non-availability of sufficient evidence has to be considered in the context of the standard of proof for a successful prosecution vis-a-vis a departmental enquiry. While in the former onus is one of beyond all reasonable doubts in the latter it is one of probability. Another reason which impels us to reject the contention of Respondent 1 is that the enquiry has proceeded to some length in that six witnesses have already been examined 14. Coming now to the impugned orders we find that one of the reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge in making the same was that Respondent 1 was suspended since the date the charge-sheet was issued, but that is admittedly incorrect. We are also of the view that considering the seriousness of the charges, the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in concluding the enquiry, which cannot be said to be unsatisfactory and the fact that the enquiry has proceeded to some length the High Court ought not to have rejected the reasonable prayer of the appellant for extension of time

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Having gone through the material placed before us we are unable to accept the contentions raised by Respondent 1 relying upon the final report, firstly, because, the misconducts and for that matter, the allegations on which they are based, are not confined to only acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known source of income. Secondly, the final report submitted by the CBI recommending discharge of Respondent 1 on the ground ofy of sufficient evidence has to be considered in the context of the standard of proof for a successful prosecutions a departmental enquiry. While in the former onus is one of beyond all reasonable doubts in the latter it is one of probability. Another reason which impels us to reject the contention of Respondent 1 is that the enquiry has proceeded to some length in that six witnesses have already been examined14. Coming now to the impugned orders we find that one of the reasons which weighed with the learned Single Judge in making the same was that Respondent 1 was suspended since the date thet was issued, but that is admittedly incorrect. We are also of the view that considering the seriousness of the charges, the explanation offered by the appellant for the delay in concluding the enquiry, which cannot be said to be unsatisfactory and the fact that the enquiry has proceeded to some length the High Court ought not to have rejected the reasonable prayer of the appellant for extension of time