1 2025:CGHC:31148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1109 of 2020 Order Reserved on 19.06.2025 Order Pronounced on 08.07.2025 1 - A. K. Singh S/o Badri Nath Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o Quarter No. D- 11, Shakti Nagar, Jarhi, Post Bhatgaon, Colliery, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited A Mini Ratna Company, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Registered Office Seepat Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman-Cum-Managing Director/disciplinary Authority, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur Area, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Enquiry Authority / Officer Ex-Director (Commercial) Moil 5th Floor, Mahima Kamlini Appt. Palm Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440001, District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kabeer Kawani, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Order 1. By way of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet issued to him on 23.05.2018 (vide Annexure P-1) by respondent No. 2 and also the entire Departmental proceedings and order dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-9) inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner has already been acquitted in a Criminal Case No. C.B.I. 02/ 2017 by Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Raipur vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 and the Departmental enquiry proceedings initiated by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (henceforth, “SECL”) is based on the identical and similar set of facts and the evidence, therefore, continuation of departmental proceeding is illegal. 2. Imperative facts leading to file instant writ petition are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of “Colliery Manager” and was posted at Bhatgaon Colliery, subsequently, he was promoted to the post of “Manager”. Presently, he is holding the post of Senior Manager Mining and is posted at SECL, Bhatgaon Area. On 17.11.2014, “Central Bureau of Investigation” (C.B.I.), Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, Bhilai Branch registered C.B.I. Case No. RC1242014A0007 for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 & 409 of the Indian Code read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and four other accused persons, on the allegation of pilferage of coal from Amagaon, Open Cast Mine of SECL, Bishrampur area in the conspiracy with other officers and employees of SECL and transporter and diverted the shortage coal to the open market. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, which was registered as Special Criminal Case No. CBI / 02/2017. Learned Special Judge of Special Court 3 (CBI Cases), Raipur acquitted all the accused persons by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 25.07.2018. Prior to this, vide order dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 2/SECL, departmental enquiry proceedings was ordered to be initiated against petitioner and other accused persons and charge-sheet was served to the petitioner. After judgment of acquittal dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by Special Judge, CBI, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-8) before respondent No. 2 for dismissal of departmental inquiry proceeding initiated against him, on the ground that since criminal case and departmental enquiry proceedings are based on same set of facts & evidence and he has been acquitted in criminal case, therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry proceedings is unwarranted, illegal and amounts to double jeopardy, but the same has been rejected by respondent No. 2- SECL vide impugned order dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-9), which give rise to file instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in impugned departmental case and Special Criminal case are one and the same, therefore, after acquittal in criminal case, departmental case would be nothing, but a futile exercise. In this regard, he relied upon in the case of Capt. M. Paulanthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & anr. 1 , G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & another 2 , which has further been relied upon by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR) vs. C. Nagraju & Anr.3 1 (1999) 3 SCC 679 2 (2006) 5 SCC 446 3 (2019) 10 SCC 367 4 3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in departmental case and Special Criminal Case, witnesses are the same and during trial, those witnesses were cross-examined before the Court, therefore, the value of the statement of those witnesses in departmental case have worthless and would not help the enquiry because the Criminal Court has already considered the oral and documentary evidence of all the witnesses and held that no offence is made out. He further submits that after acquittal from the Special Criminal Court, the petitioner raised specific objection before respondent No. 2 vide application (Annexure P-8) that since he has been acquitted in criminal case, therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry is illegal and amounts to double jeopardy, hence, it be dismissed but the same has been rejected by respondent No. 2/SECL without adhering the law laid down by the Apex Court in afore-cited cases and the same is kept pending with malafide intention. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while dealing with the charge of criminal breach of trust & corruption, Criminal Court has categorically dealt with the allegations levelled against the petitioner in light of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges. Therefore, continuation of departmental enquiry proceeding is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-cited cases, hence, he prayed that this petition may be allowed and the entire departmental enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 4. Respondents / SECL has filed its return stating inter alia that the petitioner has filed instant petition for quashment of charge-sheet and entire departmental proceeding, whereas it is settled law that departmental proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of acquittal of 5 delinquent employee in a criminal case. As there is no legal bar to not continuing the departmental proceeding even after acquittal from the criminal charges, as has been provided under the Certified Standing Order of Company (SECL) / Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978 {henceforth, CDA Rules, 1978} of Coal India Limited, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be rejected on this sole ground. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents / SECL while referring to its reply would submit that it is settled law that the acquittal of an employee by Criminal Court cannot automatically and concisely impact departmental proceeding, because firstly, disparate degrees of proof in two, viz, beyond reasonable doubt in criminal prosecution contrasted by preponderance of probability in civil and departmental cases Secondly, criminal prosecution is not within the control of the concerned department and acquittal could be the consequence of shoddy investigation or slovenly assimilation of evidence, or lackadaisical if not collusive conduct of trial etc. Thirdly, an acquittal in a criminal prosecution may not preclude a contrary conclusion in a departmental enquiry if the former is a positive decision in contradistinction to a passive verdict, which may be predicated on technical infirmities. In other words, the Criminal Court must conclude that the accused is innocent and not merely conclude that he has not been proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR) (Supra) and Union of India & Others Vs. Purushottam 4 in support of his submission. 5.1 It is further contended that even after acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner is regularly participating in the inquiry before the Inquiry 4 2015 (3) SCC 779 6 Officer and also cross-examined the management witnesses. It is next contended that allegations / charges framed against the petitioner under criminal case and departmental enquiry are not one and the same, as charges levelled against the petitioner in departmental enquiry proceeding are in respect of his failure to maintain absolute integrity and act of omission or commission in maintaining the record, on the part of the petitioner, tantamount not fulfillment of duties and obligations of an executive as contained in rule 4.1 (I), 4.1 (iv) and 4.2 of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1978 of the Coal India Limited. As such, even after acquittal of the petitioner, the employer has a right to conduct or initiate departmental inquiry in accordance with the Rules prescribed under the CDA Rules, 1978. It is further contended that purpose of underlying departmental proceeding is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offenders owes to the society, whereas departmental enquiry is aimed to maintain discipline and efficiency in service. Further, it is settled law that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be exercised for quashing a Show Cause Notice / charge-sheet, except in rare case of total lack of jurisdiction or illegality. It is also settled law that the examination of correctness or truth of charge is the function of disciplinary authority, therefore, High Court ought not to have interfered with. Representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Authority vide order 02.01.2010 (Annexure P-9) taking into all submission and grounds raised by the petitioner. He further submits that judgments relied upon by the counsel for petitioner is not helpful to him in fact situation of instant case. 7 5.2. Learned counsel for the respondents / SECL while referring to Clause 7.8.4 of Vigilance Manual, 2017 issued by Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi at Chapter-VII would submit that if criminal case did not cover entire field of departmental proceedings, then departmental proceedings may go on, as has been settled by Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR) (supra) and State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh 5 . It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to show what is the illegality in the charge-sheet issued by the authority to be interfered with by the High Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather continuation of departmental proceeding is well within the premises of authority of Respondents / SECL, even after acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 7. As per the petitioner, for the same set of allegations / charges, he and other officials of SECL have been charge-sheeted firstly in Special Criminal Case No. CBI/02/2017, in which, vide judgment dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been acquitted by the Special Court, Secondly, prior to that acquittal vide impugned order dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-1), charge-sheet was served to the petitioner and departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated against him on the basis of same set of charges and evidence. After getting acquittal in Special Criminal Case, application (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner for dismissal of departmental enquiry proceedings on the ground of aforesaid acquittal has 5 (2022) 6 SCC 563 8 been rejected by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure P-9). 8. The core issue involved in the instant petition is, as to whether acquittal of the petitioner by Special criminal Court would debar an employer from exercising power to conduct / continue departmental enquiry proceedings against him ? 9. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, judgment rendered by the Apex Court pertaining the issue are apt to be noticed hereunder :- 10. In the matter of G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat 6 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 31 as under :- “31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679 will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” 6 (2006) 5 SCC 446 9 11. In the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR) [supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. Tank (supra) and other cases have held as under :- “9. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the Respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the PC Act are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different. 13. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent No.1, we are of the view that interference with the order of dismissal by the High Court was unwarranted. It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be 10 continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.” 12. The principle of law laid down in the matter of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited represented by Managing Director (Administrative and HR) vs. C. Nagraju & Anr. (supra) has been reiterated & followed with approval by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another vs. Umesh (supra) in which their Lordships have held as under :- “16. The principles which govern a disciplinary enquiry are distinct from those which apply to a criminal trial. In a prosecution for an offence punishable under the criminal law, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment. Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are distinct from those which govern a disciplinary enquiry. The acquittal of the 11 accused in a criminal case does not debar the employer from proceeding in the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction. 22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 12 The findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding. 13. In the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others 7 , Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue that, what is the effect of acquittal order by the Judge in Criminal trial in departmental enquiry proceeding, has held legal position as under :- “11. We have examined both the questions independently. We are conscious of the fact that a writ court’s power to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate. [See State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023:INSC:766 = 2023 (11) Scale 530]. As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, courts are not powerless to interfere. [See United Bank of India vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, 2022:INSC:117 = (2022) 13 SCC 329] 12. We are also conscious of the fact that mere acquittal by a criminal court will not confer on the employee a right to claim any benefit, including reinstatement. (See Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598). 7 (2024) 1 SCC 175 13 13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]” 14. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others 8 has held as under :- 47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in 8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890 14 the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal (supra. 15. Thus, it is settled law that, acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused / delinquent employee to have an order of dismissal of departmental enquiry or debar employer to conduct / continue departmental enquiry. However, when the charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in both the cases i.e. departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimensions. If the Court in judicial review concludes that all the fields of the charges and evidence are similar in both the cases and the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge (s), the Court in judicial review will be entitled to exercise its discretion in granting relief, if it reaches to the conclusion that allowing finding in the departmental proceeding will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. But, it has also been held that each case will rests on its own facts & circumstances. 16. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, perusal of charges of criminal case shows that it has been levelled against the petitioner for commission of offence of ‘criminal breach of trust’ by causing physical loss of huge quantity of coal of crores of rupees and to conceal the same, they fabricated official record and also prepared bogus documents in connivance with other accused persons, whereas first charge levelled in the departmental case against petitioner is falsification and fabrication of official records with ulterior motive to conceal the coal stock shortage by not mentioning about it and also not mentioning about vigilance investigation in the boolket of Annual Coal Stock Measurement for the 15 financial year 2013-14 and subsequently wrong mentioning about coal stock shortage within permissible limit without conducting actual measurements of heaps of coal of Amgaon OCM. Second charge levelled against the petitioner in departmental case is that, he did not conduct monthly measurements of vendible coal stock for the month of April – 2014 to May – 2014 wherein huge coal stock shortage existed and to conceal the same, prepared false & fabricated documents to protect other co-accused persons and he himself admitted in writing that there was a coal stock shortage to the tune of 45,000 tonnes. Thus, he failed to comply the relevant provisions of New Code for uniform system of maintenance, control and verification of Coal stock in all Mines of Coal India Limited and thereby compromise the company’s guidelines and failed to maintain absolute integrity, duties and obligations of an executive as contained in said Rules of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Limited. 17. Causing physical loss of huge quantity of coal worth crores of rupees by manipulating official record and by fabricating false & bogus documents attracts criminal offence against petitioner, but not maintaining official record, not conducting actual measurements of heaps of coal of Amgaon OCM, not conducting monthly measurement of vendible coal stocks, which resulted into shortage of coal stock [same has been admitted by petitioner himself in writing, as per the Articles of charge], whereas, the petitioner being colliery manager was duty bound to maintain records and act as per relevant rules, to which, he failed and flouted the relevant rules mentioned in Article of Charges. Such misconduct of the petitioner attracts civil consequences and departmental proceeding. 18. If any charge (s) for commission of crime is made against any officer or employee in criminal case, in which, there is no element of violation of any 16 departmental rules, procedure, order, instructions, etc, then if such officer / employee is acquitted in criminal case, then neither departmental enquiry can be conducted in relation of such charge (s) nor he can be punished in departmental enquiry based on such charge, like murder, robbery & dacoity, etc., however, if the element of violation of departmental rules, procedure, order, direction etc. is also involved in the occurrence of that crime, then on the basis of mere acquittal in a criminal case, the employer cannot be deprived of his right to conduct a departmental enquiry against concerned officer / employee and to punish him for violation of such rules, procedure, order, direction etc. 19. In the instant case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons despite being officer / employee of SECL, they misappropriated / disposed of huge quantity of coal of mines worth crores of rupees and causes financial loss to the SECL and to do this, they did not do their duties as per the rules / standing order/ directions, rather they manipulated / fabricated official data / records and prepared bogus documents. Thus, the petitioner and other accused persons not only cause financial loss to the SECL and committed criminal breach of trust, rather they also violated relevant rules, procedure, order / direction of SECL / Coal India Limited, therefore, it cannot be said that dimension / field / circumstances of charge (s) in both the cases i.e. departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are one and the same. 20. In the case of Union of India & others vs. Sitaram Mishra and another 9 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that, “A disciplinary enquiry is governed by a different standard of proof than that which applies to a criminal case. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of a disciplinary enquiry is to enable the employer to determine as to whether an employee has committed 9 (2019) 20 SCC 588 17 a breach of the service rules. Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in other afore-cited cases. 21. In the instant case, though the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal case, but departmental enquiry proceedings is being conducted against him to determine as to whether he has committed breach of service rules. As has been discussed above, nature, circumstances and gravity of charges in both the cases are also not found to be one and the same, therefore, acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case would not debar an employer from exercising the power to conduct departmental enquiry in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations. 22. Clause 7.8.4 of Vigilance Manual, 2017 (Annexure R-1) also authorize the respondents / employer to conduct departmental enquiry against employee, even if he is acquitted from criminal court, but, if criminal case did not cover the entire field of departmental proceedings. 23. Perusal of judgment dated 25.07.2018 passed by Special Judge, CBI show that petitioner and other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges because prosecution has failed to prove the case, beyond reasonable doubt. This finding shows that neither it is a case of clear-cut acquittal nor a case of no evidence. In this regard, following observations of aforesaid judgment are required to be looked into :- “71- प्रति परीक्षण के ह आर के दास अ.सा.-54 [Investigation Officer (foospd½] ने अपने प्रति परीक्षण की कतिका 52 में यह स्वीकार किकया है किक समस् वे किज रजिजस्टर पर एसईसीएल के अति#कारी / कम$चारी के हस्ाक्षर नहीं है था यह भी स्वीकार किकया है किक वे किज क्लक$ के हस्ाक्षर के सबं# में उनका नमूना हस्ाक्षर नहीं लिलया गया था सबति# पंजिजयों पर पूरा ट्रक नबर उल्लेलि3 नहीं है और परिरवहन में प्रयुक्त गातियों के पजीयन नाम की स्थिस्थति भी दर्शि: नहीं है। इसी प्रकार आर के दास अ.सा.- 18 54 ने अपने प्रति परीक्षण की कं तिका 59 में यह स्वीकार किकया है किक उसके व्दारा प्रस्ु 313 किट्रप का$ के संब# में हस्ले3 एव हस्ाक्षर बाब नमूना नहीं लिलया गया और उनके फज? होने के सबं# में कोई जाच नहीं की गयी। यद्यकिप साक्षी ने वे किज क्लक$ के रजिजस्टर से किमलान करने की स्थिस्थति दर्शि: की है, किंकु उपरोक्त स्थिस्थति में यह स्पष्ट किकया जा चुका है किक प्रस्ु वे किज क्लक$ रजिजस्टर भी प्रकिDया अनुसार सं#ारिर न होने के कारण उनकी प्रकिवकिष्टयां गणना करने योग्य नहीं मानी जा सकी। 72- ऐसी स्थिस्थति में श्याम सुंदर रात्रे अ.सा.-46 का कथन भी महत्वपूण$ है, क्योंकिक उसने यह दर्शि: किकया है किक आमगांव ओसीपी में माईन्स फे स से स्टाक या$ क के किवभिभन्न किट्रप रजिजस्टर थे उनमें उल्लेलि3 किट्रपों की सख्या एव आमगाव ओसीपी के काटाघर में मेनटेन किकये गये रिरका$ में उल्लेलि3 किट्रपों की संख्या मेल नहीं 3ाी थी। इस साक्षी ने उक्त स्थिस्थति के कारण अति#कर सुरक्षा गा$ का कम पढा लिल3ा होना एवं vkexkao ओसीपी में आ#ारभू ढांचे का अभाव सकिह अन्य किवपरी परिरस्थिस्थतियों में गल इन्द्राज होने अथवा इन्द्राज न होने की स्थिस्थति दर्शि: की है। ऐसी स्थिस्थति में उक्त साक्षी के मुख्य परीक्षण के आ#ार पर ही यह स्पष्ट है किक अभिभयोजन व्दारा प्रस्ु वे किज रजिजस्टर एव किट्रप का$ अथवा स्टाक या$ के संब# में प्रस्ु दस्ावेज प्रकिDया अनुसार किवति# सम्म न होने से किवश्वसनीय नहीं माने जा सके था उनके आ#ार पर किनष्कर्ष$ किदया जाना अत्य असुरतिक्ष होगा। 74-महत्वपूण$ स्थिस्थति यह है किक कोल स्टाक मेजरमेंट करना अथवा करवाना वस्ुः सा#ारण स्थिस्थति नहीं है, बस्थिXक कनीकी ज्ञान, ैयारी एव सीआईएल की गाई लाईन के किबना किकया जाना सभव नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिस्थति में आर के दास अ.सा.-54 का यह स्वीकार करना किक उसे कोल स्टाक मेजरमेंट का व्यकिक्तग ज्ञान नहीं है था उसने ज्वाईट सरप्राईज चेक अथवा कोल स्टाक कम होने का भौतिक सत्यापन नहीं किकया था था यह भी स्वीकार किकया है किक किववेचना के दौरान प्रकरण की अवति# के संबं# में कोयले के उत्पादन, किवDय, परिरवहन एवं उपलब्# स्टाक का पृथक से गणना कर भौतिक सत्यापन नहीं किकया एवं आरोपी एस के रानू के पूव$ महाप्रबं#क सकिह अन्य अति#कारिरयों व्दारा किकये गये मेजरमेंट का किव:लेर्षण नहीं किकया गया, ब यह स्पष्ट है किक प्रद:$ पी 160 की प्रथम सूचना रिरपोट$ के अनुसरण में ठोस एवं #रालीय किववेचना का पूण$ अभाव अभिभले3 से दर्शि: है। 19 75- इस प्रकार मात्र सही काय$वाही, ftlesa साक्ष्य लेना एवं दस्ावेज संकलिल करना ही समुतिच किववेचना का अंग नहीं माना जा सका था किववेचना के ह उत्पादन, किवDय, परिरवहन एवं :ेर्ष स्टाक के भौतिक सत्यापन के किबना पूव$ दस्ावेजी आकों जिजनके सबं# में दर्शि: मेजरमेंट प्रकिDयाग कारणों से समुतिच नहीं होना किववेचना में पाया गया, के आ#ार पर यह स्पष्ट है किक प्रथम सूचना रिरपोट$ के पश्चा वास्किवक रूप से किववेचना के ह किकसी भी स्थिस्थति का भौतिक सत्यापन न होने से मात्र दस्ावेजी आकों के आ#ार पर किनष्कर्ष$ किदया जाना उतिच नहीं है। 77- इस प्रकार उक्त प्रतिरक्षा को आरोपीगण व्दारा बनायी गयी प्रतिरक्षा नहीं माना जा सका। साथ gh जहां आर के दास किववेचक व्दारा यह स्वीकार किकया गया है किक कनवस$न फे क्टर के संबं# में ायरेक्टर टेस्थिक्नकल का कोई बयान नहीं लिलया गया था, ब उक्त स्थिस्थति स्पष्ट करी है किक किववेचक व्दारा अपनी किववेचना में सबति# थ्यों को स्पष्ट करने हेु अन्वेर्षण नहीं किकया गया। 79- यह स्पष्ट है किक न्यू को बुक किदनांक 01.01.2012 से प्रवृत्त हुई, किंकु अभिभयोजन व्दारा यह स्पष्ट नहीं किकया गया किक वास्व में क्वाटरली स्टाक मेजरमेंट के 15 किदन के भीर ओवर ब$न रिरमूवल काय$वाही की गयी। इस प्रकार जहां ओवर cMZu रिरमूवल काय$वाही के संबं# में ाटा प्रस्ु नहीं किकया गया, ब यह स्पष्ट है किक अभिभयोजन ने यह किन#ा$रिर करने का प्रयास नहीं किकया किक वास्व में संबंति# माईन्स में किकनी जगह 3ाली हुई, जिजसके आ#ार पर उत्पादन का किमलान किकया जा सके । 87- इस प्रकार हस्ग प्रकरण में जहां उपरोक्त कोल स्टाक मेजरमेंट के आ#ार पर संपलित्त का न्यस् किकया जाना प्रमाभिण नहीं है, ब ले3ा किववरण के प्रस्ु किकये जाने अथा$ स्पष्टीकरण देने की कोई आवश्यका vkjksihx.k के संबं# में नहीं मानी जा सकी। साथ ही जहां चोरी अथवा आपराति#क न्यास भग अथा$ सपलित्त का अपने पक्ष में बेईमानीपूव$क दुर्विवकिनयोग प्रमाभिण नहीं है, ब यह स्पष्ट है किक अभिभयुक्तगण सदेह का लाभ प्राप्त करने के हकदार है। 95- इस प्रकार जहां कोयले की कमी प्रमाभिण नहीं है, वहीं किदनांक 11 जनवरी से 23 जनवरी 2014 के मध्य कोल परिरवहन के संबं# में प्रस्ु किट्रप 20 का$ फज? होना प्रमाभिण नहीं पाये गये, ब यह स्पष्ट है किक संपलित्त के न्यस् होने के सबं# में प्रमाभिण स्थिस्थति अभिभले3 पर न होने से अभिभयोजन व्दारा प्रस्ु उपरोक्त न्याय दृष्टा किहमाचल प्रदे: किवरूद्ध कण$वीर में दर्शि: जिसद्वा का लाभ अभिभयोजन को नहीं किदया जा सका। साथ ही प्रकरण की परिरस्थिस्थतियों में भी उक्त उप#ारणा आरोपीगण के किवरूद्ध किकये जाने हेु स्थिस्थति अभिभयोजन के पक्ष में प्रमाभिण नहीं है।" 24. From perusal of observations made by Special Judge (CBI) vide judgment dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-5) show that since there was various lacunae found in investigation and documents were also not proved by the prosecution in accordance with law, therefore, learned Special Judge by granting benefit of doubt to the accused persons has acquitted them. Hence, it cannot be said that it is not a case of no evidence at all. Further, departmental proceeding is being conducted against the petitioner to determine, as to whether he has committed / violated the service rules, order, instructions, etc. or not and the same is being conducted under the service Rules & Regulations. Nature, dimensions / field of charge (s) of both the proceedings are also not one and the same, therefore, objection raised by the petitioner, that continuation of departmental enquiry proceeding after his acquittal in Special Criminal case is misconceived, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Rather, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court continuation of departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is well within the premise of law. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant petition, hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 26. Consequently, stay granted by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 also stands vacated. No cost (s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.09 11:19:06 +0530 21