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

2025:BHC-NAG:14703-DB 1 902) CAW 2242-25 in WP 2087-24(D).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 2242 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2087 OF 2024 (D) GAUTAM S/O. NARAYANRAO BASUTKAR ...Vs...

COAL INDIA LTD. THR. ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, WCFL, NAGPUR Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri J.D.Bastian, Advocate h/f. Shri P. Naidu, Advocate for petitioner/applicant. Shri P.A. Ghare, h/f. Shri A.M.Ghare, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.

DATED : 18th DECEMBER, 2025.

Heard.

2.

This is an application for extension of order dated 10/07/2024.

3.

Vide order dated 10/07/2024, this Court had stayed the departmental proceedings against the petitioner for a period of 9 months and partly allowed the petition. 4.

In short, it is the case of the petitioner that since the departmental inquiry and the prosecution of the petitioner was based on the documents and the witnesses who were also part of the criminal trial, the prosecution was stayed for a period of 9 months.

5.

In the aforesaid background, since the criminal prosecution has not been culminated, the present application for extension of order has been preferred.

2 902) CAW 2242-25 in WP 2087-24(D).odt 6.

Considering the fact that the prosecution against the petitioner was under Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court vide its order dated 21/11/2025 had called for the report regarding the progress of the criminal case from the concerned Court. On 08/12/2025, learned District Judge-1 and A.S.J., Amaravati has submitted his report in which he has stated that on 14/11/2025, further examination-in-chief of panch witness i.e. P.W.-3 was recorded. On being inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner, he fairly submitted that the examination and the cross-examination of the star witness i.e. complainant is already over.

7.

That being so, we do not find any substance in the application since by way of cross-examination of the complainant, the defence has disclosed its stand. Thus, the application is rejected.

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) B.T.K.