Disposed¶20

Gautam S/O Narayanrao Basutkar v. Coal India Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Nagpur

Bombay HC29 Apr 2025CAW/786/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of stay of departmental enquiry pending criminal trial on same facts; parallel proceedings; delay and procrastination by accused; application for de-exhibiting exhibited documents without legal basis; no provision in Evidence Act for de-exhibiting documents; non-cooperation with criminal trial cannot be countenanced; two-month final extension, no further extension; Coal India Limited employee; Writ Petition (D) No. 2087 of 2024; CAW No. 786 of 2025; Nagpur Bench; order sheet chronology of trial (charge 01.08.2024, PW-2 Pratap, penalty Rs. 1,000/- for adjournment).

What did the court decide?

Stay of departmental proceedings extended by two months, with a direction that no further extension shall be granted; the Civil Application disposed of accordingly. ¶20

Gautam S/O Narayanrao Basutkar vs Coal India Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Nagpur — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Stay of departmental proceedings extended by two months, with a direction that no further extension shall be granted; the Civil Application disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the stay of departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, granted by order dated 10.07.2024 for a period of nine months, should be extended further. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Considering that PW-2, who is under examination, and the Investigating Officer will be material witnesses, the stay of departmental proceedings is extended by two months only, with a direction that no further extension shall be granted.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The application at Exh. 66/D for de-exhibiting the exhibited documents was without any legal basis whatsoever, since counsel for the Petitioner admitted there is no provision in the Evidence Act for de-exhibiting documents, and it indicated procrastination on the part of the accused; such conduct ought not to be entertained.

¶17

Key takeaways

Conduct by which the Petitioner seeks stay of departmental proceedings on the ground that criminal prosecution is on the same state of facts, while on the other hand not cooperating with the prosecution of the criminal proceedings, cannot be countenanced.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Extension of stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal trial on the same facts (Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench, 29.04.2025): The Petitioner, whose departmental proceedings were stayed for nine months by order dated 10.07.2024 with a direction to conclude the criminal trial in the meantime, sought extension on the ground of lack of substantive progress in the trial. The Court found from the order sheet that the charge was framed on 01.08.2024 and witnesses were being examined, but that the accused himself had contributed to the delay by filing an application (Exh. 66/D) for de-exhibiting exhibited documents, which was held to be without any legal basis whatsoever — counsel admitting there is no provision in the Evidence Act for de-exhibiting documents — and indicative of procrastination. The Court held that seeking stay of departmental proceedings on the ground of parallel criminal prosecution while not cooperating with the criminal trial cannot be countenanced. Considering that PW-2 (under examination) and the Investigating Officer are material witnesses, the stay was extended by two months only, with a categorical direction that no further extension shall be granted. Application disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:4491-DB

¶2

1 5.CAW.786-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 786 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2087 OF 2024 (D)

¶5

( Gautam S/o Narayanrao Basutkar

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Coal India Limited, Thr. its Chairman cum Managing Director )

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Mr. J.D. Bastian, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P. Ghare, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 29^th APRIL, 2025

¶12

1 . Heard.

¶13

2 . This is an Application for extension of the order dated 10.07.2024, by which the departmental proceedings against the Petitioner, were stayed for a period of nine months. The application has been filed on the ground, that there is no substantive progress, in the trial and only one witness has been examined by the prosecution and the examination of the other witnesses is going on, and therefore, continuation of the departmental proceedings, would cause prejudice to the Petitioner as the main witness is being examined.

¶14

3 . The order dated 10.07.2024 granted nine months stayed the departmental enquiry by directing that in the

¶15

2 5.CAW.786-2025.odt

¶16

meantime every endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial against the Petitioner. The order sheet placed on record, would indicate, that the charge was framed on 01.08.2024 and summons issued to the witnesses. The first witness Amitabh Kuamr Singh was examined on 17.08.2024. The examination-in-chief of PW-2 Pratap was recorded on 06.09.2024. The further examination was recorded on 03.10.2024, in which various documents were exhibited in the presence of the Counsel of the accused. On an application of adjournment by the Counsel of the accused, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was awarded on 28.10.2024. Further examination-in-chief of PW-2 was recorded on 14.11.2024 and 10.12.2024 and the matter was adjourned to 13.01.2025, when the Counsel for the accused filed an application for de-exhibiting the exhibited documents, and the matter was postponed on that count on 27.01.2025 and thereafter on 07.02.2025 when the application was heard and decided.

¶17

4 . When a query was put to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, as to whether there is any provision in the Evidence Act for de-exhibiting the documents, he candidly replied in the negative. This would clearly indicate, that the application at Exh. 66/D, was without any legal basis whatsoever and would therefore indicate procrastination on the part of the accused. This kind of conduct, ought not to be entertained. The record also shows subsequent adjournments being sought by the accused. This kind of conduct, cannot be countenanced, as on the one hand, the Petitioner seeks stay of the departmental proceedings on the ground that criminal prosecution is also on the same state of facts and on the other

¶18

3 5.CAW.786-2025.odt

¶19

hand, does not cooperate with the prosecution of the criminal proceedings. However, considering that PW-2 who is under examination and the Investigating Officer will be material witnesses, we extend the stay by two months, with the direction that no further extension shall be granted.

¶20

5 . The Application is disposed off .

¶21

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶22

SD. Bhimte

¶23

Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/04/2025 18:18:02

Gautam S/O Narayanrao Basutkar v. Coal India Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam S/O Narayanrao Basutkar v. Coal India Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jolly v. Paul vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Energy, Mumbai and Others

Kanchan Girish Nimbulkar Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs, New Delhi and Another

Raman S/O Pandurangji Thawkar vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Tourism and Cultural Affairs, Mumbai and Others

Sau. Anita W/O Sharad Ganvir Vs the Union of India, through Its General Manager, Mumbai and Others

Shrihari Gajanan Ginning Industry, Thr. Partner, Dhiraj S/O. Dhanraj Mungale vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Ors.

Shaikh Habibullah S/O Shaikh Abdulla Shareef Vs Union of India, through Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and Others