1 2025:CGHC:27626-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5468 of 2025 Satendra Biraj Bara S/o Late Biraj Bara Aged About 58 Years R/o Qtr. No. 2/B, Street No. 48, Sector 08, Bhilai West, Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh Occupation Assistant General Manager (Steel Melting Shop-II) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Chairman And Reviewing Authority, Corporate Office Ispat Bhawan Lodhi Road New Delhi, Pin 110003 2 - Chief Vigilance Officer, SAIL, Corporate Office, 2nd Floor, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 3 - Bhilai Steel Plant (A Unit Of Steel Authority Of India Limited) Through Director In Charge, Address Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Pin 490001 4 - The Disciplinary Authority And Executive Director (Works) SAIL/ Bhilai Steel Plant, Address Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Pin 490001 5 - The Inquiring Authority And General Manager (IED,) SAIL/ Bhilai 2 Steel Plant, Address Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Pin 490001 6 - The Assistant General Manager (Vigilance), Bhilai Steel Plant, Through ACVO, Bhilai Steel Plant Presenting Officer, Address Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai Pin 490001 7 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Additional Chief Vigilance Officer (ACVO),. Address Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Pin 490001 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J 25.06.2025 The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.6.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (in short “the Tribunal”) whereby the Tribunal directed for listing the matter on 9.7.2025 for filing of reply as also on consideration of interim relief during the circuit court sitting at Bilaspur. 02. Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this petition, are that the respondent authorities proposed to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner as per memorandum dated 30.11.2024 on the charges 3 that the petitioner violated House Allotment Rules by sub letting the company quarter No.1/C/AVB/Sector 02 to some other person and for furnishing false information to the vigilance department and thereby misled the vigilance investigation. On 2.5.2025 the petitioner then filed OA No.484/2025 and MA No.703/2025 before the Tribunal. The matter came up for hearing on 16.5.2025 and was adjourned with directions. The petitioner then filed MA No.812/2025, application for listing the case before the vacation bench and MA No. 813/2025, application for grant of interim relief because respondent No.5 had submitted the brief report on 17.5.2025 as per CVC Circular dated 3.12.2021 and the petitioner had to submit his reply within a span of 15 days. However, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 2.6.2025 sought reply of the respondents and directed for listing the matter on 9.7.2025 for filing of reply and consideration on the interim relief application during circuit court sitting at Bilaspur. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondent's for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Jabalpur on dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) and also stay the effects and operation of the brief submitted by respondent no. 05 on dated 17.05.2025 till next 4 day of hearing scheduled on 09.07.2025 at CAT Circuit court, Bilaspur (C.G). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and departmental enquiry initiated against him is not fair and proper. The petitioner filed original application No.484/2025 before the Tribunal in which the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to file reply and instead of filing reply, they are pressuring the petitioner for submission of charged officer brief latest by 7.6.2025. Though the impugned order of the Tribunal is well withing knowledge of the respondent authorities but still they are creating pressure on the petitioner to submit the charged officer brief. The Tribunal erred in appreciating the fact that in the brief submitted by respondent No.5 there is mention of circular dated 3.12.2021 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the time period prescribed for submission of written brief by CO to IO is 15 days whereas the brief submitted by respondent No.5 was beyond 15 days which was a deliberate act with malafide intention. Though the petitioner sent an email to the respondent authorities and informed them about the matter being sub judice before the Tribunal but in spite of that they are pressurizing the petitioner to submit charged officer brief latest by 7.6.2025 otherwise they would conclude the departmental enquiry as per CDA Rules. 5 04. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order of the Tribunal submits that the instant petition is not at all maintainable and as such, liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of UOI and others Vs. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, (1996) 1 SCC 327; Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004) 3 SCC 440; UOI and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28; State of Orissa and another Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra and another, (2010) 13 SCC 311; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Indian Newspaper Society and others, (2011) 14 SCC 140; and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 06. It is not disputed in this case that the original application of the petitioner is still pending consideration before the learned Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal has only fixed the matter for filing of reply of the respondents and consideration on the interim relief application on 9.7.2025. Thus, considering the fact that the original application is still pending and the parties have adequate opportunity to 6 place all the relevant facts and advance legal arguments before the Tribunal on the application for interim relief, it would be inappropriate for this Court to interfere with the impugned interim order at this stage. 07. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to both the parties to raise all those grounds available to them on the issue of interim relief before the concerned Tribunal which shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till 9.7.2025. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.06.27 11:59:08 +0530