- (1.) The appellant is a driver in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer (for short 'the Corporation'). He was served with the charge sheet on 27/03/2000 for having committed misconduct under Section 34 (M, P & Q) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation Appellant submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 25/04/2000 and made a prayer to stay the enquiry proceedings on the ground that criminal case on the same charge was already pending against him, therefore, departmental proceedings could not be conducted simultaneously. It appears that when the evidence from both the sides were adduced, the appellant decided to approach the High Court and on 2/02/2001, writ petition came to be filed by the appellant with the following prayers: (i) to declare the departmental enquiry initiated vide charge sheet dated 27/03/2000, to be illegal and all subsequent proceedings including the charge sheet be quashed, (ii) the respondents be restrained from continuing the departmental enquiry against the appellant in respect of alleged incident of 27/11/1999, and (iii) any other order prejudicial order, if passed, during the pendency of the writ petition, may also be set aside.
(2.) Learned single Bench vide order dated 31/07/2001 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that appreciation of evidence in the criminal case and that in the departmental enquiry are quite different and thus it cannot be said that because the petitioner is facing criminal case on the charge which is subject matter of inquiry, the inquiry cannot be proceeded with. It was further observed in the order that the evidence of both the parties in the departmental inquiry was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments alone. The learned single Bench also observed in the order that bare reading of both the charges in criminal case as well as in departmental inquiry, it cannot be said that they are identical in nature.
(3.) Mr. Ashok Gaur learned counsel appearing for the appellant made scathing criticism on the judgment of the learned single Judge and placed reliance on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. We have also been taken through the documents appended with the writ petition.;