- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Govind Saran, learned counsel appearing for the respon dents.
(2.) BY means of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of mandamus command ing the respondents to stay the departmen- talproceeaings initiated by chargesheet dt. 8-8-1996 till the decision of. the criminal case started on the basis of the first informa tion report dt. 16-7-1996 against him. The relevant facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as constable in Com pany No. 48 R. P. F. (Railway Protection Force ). It was on 29-5-96 that he was granted 120 days leave. While on leave the petitioner was implicated in a Criminal Case No. 645 of 1996, under Section 394 I. P. C. on 16-7-1996. On the basis of the first information report lodged on the same day, he was arrested and sent to jail. He was subsequently, released on bail. In the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him. In the said proceedings charge sheet was is sued on 8- 8-1996 and, thereafter, he was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer. In the criminal case also chargesheet was submitted on 31-7-96. It is stated that the petitioner applied for stay of the departmental proceedings till the decision of the criminal case to the Assistant Secretary, Commissioner, R. P. F. , Northern Railway, Kanpur and also to the Inquiry Officer as he has apprehended that on ac count of continuance of the criminal proceedings his defence shall be prejudiced. Since no heed was paid to the repre sentation made by the petitioner, he had to approach this court and file the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was obligatory upon the authority concerned to stay the disciplinary proceedings till criminal case was not finally decided. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision in the case of the Sunderrajan and another v. Unit Trust of India and another, 1993 (3) SLR-21. In the said case the apex court of the country was pleased to pass the following order: "order Delay condoned. Special leave granted. Heard parties. We have perused the records. We are of the view that the departmental enquiry should be stayed till the trial which is stated to be pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras is completed. The enquiry shall accordingly stand stayed. How ever, it will be open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, if they so choose, after the THal Court has rendered its judgment, whether or not any appeal is taken from that judgment to a higher court. We are told that the trial has been pending since May, 1989and many witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly we except the Trial Court to complete the trial with in three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the circumstances, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. " From the aforesaid order it is ap parent that the order was passed by the Supreme Court under the facts and cir cumstances of that case. It does not lay down the law to the effect that whenever a govern ment employee is involved in a criminal proceedings, the departmental proceedings shall remain stayed till the disposal of the criminal case.;