Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) Challenging the charge sheet dated 18th September, 2014 and the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2014 by which a decision was communicated to the petitioner to hold a departmental enquiry, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
(2.) Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strongly submits that if there are similar charges, identical witnesses, same set of documents are relied upon in both the criminal case and the departmental proceedings, then the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case as has been held in case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4144. Mr. Ray submits that the departmental proceedings should not be allowed to continue when it is contemplated against the alleged offence committed several years before and placed reliance on a judgment rendered in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in AIR 2006 SC 207. Mr. Ray further submits that his client was not supplied with the relied upon documents as shown in the lists appended to the charge sheet and therefore, the enquiry officer has acted in gross violation of the principle of natural justice in proceeding with the enquiry proceeding.
(3.) Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, submits that all the relied upon documents have been served to the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities are acting in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that there was a serious allegations against the petitioner which culminated into initiation a departmental proceeding and therefore, it should not be nipped in the bud because of some delay taken place in initiation of the said proceeding.;