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

87 a case under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against Respondent 1 on a First Information Report lodged by an Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) wherein it was alleged that while working in different capacities in then he had acquired assets disproportionate to his income. While that case was under investigation the appellant initiated a departmental proceeding against Respondent 1 for the following misconducts(i) failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty(ii) found in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income earned by him or by any other person on his behalf, which could not be satisfactorily accounted for(iii) failed to report in Form IV to the department transactions concerning moveable property owned or held by him or by his family members4. After submitting his written explanation to the, in which he denied all the allegations made against him, the respondent moved the Patna High Court for quashing the departmental proceeding, inter alia, on the ground that it had been initiated at the instance of CBI. This writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on2 with the following order"By reasons of this writ application the petitioner has questioned the initiation of departmental proceeding inter alia on the ground that the same has been done at the instance of Central Bureau of InvestigationAs the petitioner can raise all contentions raised in this application before the appropriate authority, in our opinion this writ application cannot be entertained at this stageThis application is therefore, permitted to be withdrawn, as prayed for."5. Respondent 1 thereafter filed another writ petition in the Calcutta High Court, in its appellate side, with a prayer that the appellant should be restrained from giving effect to the promotional order dated2 until and unless he was also given promotion. He also prayed for a direction to promote him to the post of E6 grade, as per his entitlement, pending disposal of the writ petition. In contesting the petition the appellant submitted that the claim of Respondent 1 for promotion could not be considered in view of the pending departmental proceeding. After hearing the parties the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the appellant to complete the departmental enquiry within six months and, in the meantime, to decide the question of promotion of the respondent and keep the decision in a sealed cover. The High Court made it clear that if Respondent 1 was exonerated from the charges levelled against him he would be entitled to his promotion to the post of E6 grade with retrospective effect, if he was otherwise entitled6. In or about December 1993, Respondent 1 again moved the Calcutta High Court by fling another writ petitionthis time in its original sidecontending that the three communications that were sent to him on3 and3 asking him to appear before the Departmental Promotion Committee were wholly unjustified and uncalled for, having regard to the fact that the decision about his promotion had already been taken and kept in a sealed cover. Accordingly, he prayed for the following reliefs"A writ of and order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and/or each of them, their servants or agents to complete the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a month from date, failing which, to grant promotion to the petitioner from Grade E5 to E6A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and/or each of them, their servants or agents not to take any step and/or initiate any action against the petitioner on the basis of the purported communication dated3 read with the communication datedA writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and/or each of them, their servants and agents, to promote the petitioner to Grade E6 with effect from September 1992, if the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner failsA writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and sent up before this Honble Court all the records of the instant case so that necessary directions should be passed for completing the departmental proceeding against the petitioner within a period of one month from date and/or failing which, to promote the petitioner from Grade E5 to E6 and quashing the purported communications dated, 9th November and7. This writ petition was disposed of on3 by a learned Single Judge directing the appellant to keep one post vacant in Grade E6 and to complete the departmental enquiry 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 subsequently8. 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 on1 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." *

Reasoning: 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