Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties.
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge -sheet issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules under Annex. P/13 dtd. 2.3.1996. During the pendency of writ petition, the SBCWP No. 1861/1996 Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan. On the side opposite Mr. B.L. Tiwari, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. : AIR2005SC4217 submits that since the criminal trial and departmental proceedings operate in different field and have different objective, therefore, the charge -sheet cannot be quashed on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court. He further submits that since charge No.2 and 4 were not subject matter of criminal trial which have terminated in favour of the petitioner under the aforesaid judgments of criminal Courts, therefore, there is no ground to quash the enquiry on atleast these two charges against he petitioner and the Department should be allowed to proceed with the Departmental enquiry against the petitioner as charges No.2 and 4 are also of serious nature and the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot -free without holding enquiry in the matter.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that as far as charges No. 1 and 3 are concerned since in regular criminal trial held by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the Courts have already acquitted the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by SBCWP No. 1861/1996 Mool Chand v. State of Rajasthan.;