Justice Avinash G. Gharote and Justice Mukulika S. Jawalkar stayed the Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent employees pending their criminal trial. Santosh Dande, Manager Mines, WCL and Ganesh Waghmare, Subordinate Engineer (civil) WCL and Dinesh Harinkhede, Block Development Officer, Gondia had moved before the High Court praying that their Departmental Inquiry be stayed till the adjudication of the criminal trial pending against them. It was contended that Santosh Dande had been prosecuted under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 while he was posted at Chandrapur, Western Coal Fields vide FIR on 09/11/2022. Likewise, Ganesh Waghmare had been prosecuted under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 while he was posted at Niljay Mines WCL vide FIR on 06/10/2022. Similarly, Dinesh Harinkhede had been prosecuted under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 while he was posted as Block Development Officer at Gondia vide FIR on 06/11/2019. All the petitions were taken up for hearing jointly by the court. The petitioners contended that they had been served with a Memorandum of Charge and had been directed to participate in the Departmental Inquiry which had been initiated against them. It was contended that in the matter of Santosh Dhande and Ganesh Harinkhede the prosecution was initiated by the CBI (ACB), whereas in the matter of Dinesh Harinkhede the prosecution was initiated by the State (ACB).
It was argued that, the witnesses as were being sought to be examined in the departmental proceedings were per se identical to those as were cited in the criminal Chargesheet. It was contented that, the said witnesses were the star witnesses in the criminal trial and that, in the event the said witnesses were permitted to be examined in the course of the Departmental Inquiry, the petitioners would be required to cross examine the said witnesses in the course of the Departmental Inquiry and as such the petitioners would be compelled to disclose and expose their substantial defence in the Departmental Inquiry, which would be gravely prejudicial to the petitioners, as the said witnesses would be apprised of the valuable defence of the petitioners and the petitioners would suffer grave damage in the criminal trial as the said witnesses would be aware of the defence of the petitioners in the criminal trial.
Wenesday Rate
Wed 25 Dec. 2024
It was also argued that the charge proposed to be framed against the petitioner in the criminal case and the Memorandum of Charge issued by the disciplinary authority against the petitioners was based on the same identical set of facts and that in view of the complexity of the facts and the evidence necessary to substantiate the same and to protect the petitioners from being exposed to disclose their defence, which is identical to the one to be taken in the criminal case, it would amount to compel the petitioner to depose against themselves on those facts. It was argued that the case at hand involves the delinquent employees /petitioners being arrayed as an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the cases under the said act involve complex questions of facts and law.
Appreciating the contentions advanced, the court proceeded to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners by staying the proposed disciplinary proceedings until the closure of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses cited in the criminal trial and directed the criminal case pending against the petitioner Santosh Dhande and Ganesh Waghmare lodged on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the CBI (ACB) to be concluded within a time frame of 8 months and further directed the trial lodged against Dinesh Harinkhede by the State (ACB) to be concluded within 6 months. The court also opined that if the trial is not concluded within 8 months and 6 months respectively on account of any default on the part of the petitioners, the department was open to proceed with the Departmental Inquiry.
Advocate Prakash Naidu, Joseph Bastian and Surabhi Godbole Naidu appeared for the petitioners. Adv Anant Dixit, Adv Prachi Joshi appeared for the state. Advocate Ajay Ghare, Onkar Ghare and Pushkar Ghare represented WCL.
