2025:JHHC:10368 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1581 of 2025 ----- Sanjay Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Bahadur Singh ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, through its Chairman- cum-Managing Director, having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seriadhela, District- Dhanbad 2.Chairman-cum-Managing Director BCCL having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seriadhela, District- Dhanbad 3.General Manager (Personnel), B.C.C.L. having its office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Seriadhela, District- Dhanbad 4.Project Officer, Rajapur Project B.C.C.L. South Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate …...... 03 / 02.04.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to quash the departmental chargesheet dated 02.02.2024 issued by the disciplinary authority. He has also prayed for staying the departmental proceeding on the ground that Civil Appeal No.33 of 2023 is pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad. 3. Admittedly, petitioner is an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. He has obtained the employment against land looser scheme. The chargesheet was issued against the petitioner alleging therein that he has made a false declaration that he is successor of the original raiyat of the land appertaining to Mauza Dobari, Mauza No.142 and Khata No.5, Plot No.62, Area 1.52 acre. Plot No.63 area 16 decimal, plot No.64 area 2 decimal and Plot No.65 area 1 decimal (Award No.9(1) and plot No.62 area 4 decimal, plot no.65 area 5 decimal and plot no.66 area 43 decimal (Award No.10). 4. During course of argument, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in L.A. reference case there is no finding given that the petitioner has forged any document. He submits that in 2025:JHHC:10368 absence of any finding against the petitioner, this chargesheet could not have been issued against the petitioner. On query, he fairly submits that now in the departmental proceeding, the inquiry report has already been submitted and second show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, but the inquiry report has not been served to the petitioner. 5. From the pleading of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner has challenged the chargesheet. In the chargesheet there is an allegation that the petitioner has made a false declaration that he is successor of original raiyat of the land mentioned therein. 6. Making any false declaration for getting employment is definitely misconduct. Whether the declaration was false or not has to be first adjudicated in the departmental proceeding. This Court cannot act as an Enquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority, when the matter is pending before the appropriate authority which is the Disciplinary Authority in this case. Thus, whatever the petitioner has to submit, he must submit before the Disciplinary Authority. Since the enquiry has been completed, it is expected that the enquiry report should be furnished to the petitioner and thereafter his reply should be considered by the Disciplinary Authority before proceeding any further. It is absolutely within the domain of the authority to pass an appropriate order and come to an independent conclusion as to whether any charge as per the standing order is made out or not. Since the matter is still pending before the authority, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is premature. I am not inclined to interfere with the departmental proceeding prematurely. Thus, the instant writ petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points which he has raised in this writ petition before the Disciplinary Authority, while replying to the second show cause notice including challenging the finding of the enquiry officer. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.