RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) WHILE the petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in Printing and Stationery Department, Government of Rajasthan, there shortage of stationery worth Rs. 25,026.82 was found in the Government Press, Udaipur, where the petitioner was working. Vide order dated 5.8.1974 Ex. 2, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.C.A. Rules') on 13th July, 1975. The petitioner was served with a charge -sheet and statement of allegations. While the inquiry was under progress, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner in respect of the same charges and the trial in this connection is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. The petitioner represented vide his application dated 10.10.1984 that till the criminal proceedings in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in respect of the same charges is pending, no inquiry proceedings be held departmentally. However, this request of the petitioner has not been acceded to and the inquiry has yet not been completed.
(2.) THE petitioner has further stated that the petitioner was given an annual increment prior to date he was suspended, in the pay scale of Upper Division Clerk upto 1.1.1974. Thereafter, the suspension order was revoked by order dated 29.6.1983, however, it was decided that till decision of the criminal proceedings as also of the departmental inquiry is taken, the petitioner will continue to be paid same pay as he was getting prior to his suspension, that is, to say, for the period of suspension he will not be paid any thing except what has been paid to him as subsistence allowance and thereafter he will not be eligible for annual grade increment. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner has not been paid annual grade increments since 1.1.1974 nor he has been given the benefit of being fixed in the revised pay scale which has come into existence from time to time. Likewise, the petitioner has not been considered for further promotion on account of pendency of criminal case and departmental inquiry against him. In these circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (1) To quash the charge -sheet, statement of allegations and memorandum and to declare that the inquiry against the petitioner cannot proceed with and to restrain the respondents from holding such inquiry. (2) That the respondents be directed to release all the Annual Grade Increments to the petitioner and pay to the petitioner which became due to him with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on and from as and when the amount became due till this is paid. (3) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the petitioner stands promoted with effect from 1986, from the date the person junior to him were promoted and the respondents may be directed to pay arrears to accrued to him, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the date as and when same become due to him, until the same is paid. So far as the first relief is concerned, law is well settled that there is no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken in respect of the same charge, in the criminal course as well as by way of departmental proceedings. However, without laying down any straight -jacket formula, the consensus of judicial opinion is that if the main ingredients of the charges under investigation before the criminal court and the departmental inquiry are the same, then the departmental inquiry ought to be stayed by the court until the decision of the criminal proceedings. Reference in this connection may be made to : (1988)IILLJ470SC Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors., where their Lordships of Supreme Court after reviewing earlier decisions in - Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan : (1960)ILLJ520SC , Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Workmen : (1964)IILLJ113SC and Jag Bahadur Singh v. Baijnath Tiwari : 1969CriLJ267 , observed as under:.while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the deliquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the court will decided in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait -jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline. In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the trial court's order of inunction which had been affirmed in appeal.
(3.) THE facts in this case are not disputed that the petitioner is facing trial on the same charges on which departmental inquiry is being conducted against him. It. has also been informed by learned Counsel for the State that the criminal trial is likely to be conducted shortly within a period of 2 -3 months from henceforth. This fact has also not been disputed that the departmental inquiry has not been concluded.;