- (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred for issuance of appropriate writ(s) / order (s)/direction(s), particularly writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to stay the departmental proceeding pursuant to the charge -sheet dated 6th June, 2003 (Annexure -2) till conclusion of the criminal proceeding in which the petitioner is an accused.
(2.) FURTHER prayer has been made to set aside the second charge -sheet dated 5th July, 2003 (Annexure -4) and the third charge -sheet dated 15th July, 2003 (Annexure -6), as according to petitioner, they are same and similar as that of the first charge -sheet dated 6th June, 2003. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges contained in Memo No. 207, dated 6th June, 2003 are similar to the charges contained in Memo No. 237, dated 5th July, 2003 and the charges contained in Memo No. 250/c, dated 15th July, 2003 but such submission cannot be accepted. If all the documents are read together, then it will be evident that the petitioner was merely informed of the allegation vide Memo No. 207, dated 6th June, 2003 and was asked to show cause as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him. The petitioner having not submitted any show cause reply, the departmental proceeding was initiated vide Memo No. 217, dated 24th June, 2003 (Annexure -3), whereby the charge -sheet contained in Memo No. 237, dated 5th July, 2003 (Annexure -4) was forwarded. Thus, it is the same allegation, one issued at the initial stage prior to initiation of departmental proceeding and the other at the time of initiation of the departmental proceeding.
(3.) SO far as the Memo No. 250/c, dated 15th July, 2003 and Memo No. 1240, dated 21st July, 2003 are concerned, it is the "imputation of charges" which has been communicated later, having not been communicated with the charge -sheet.;