Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) By way of instant interlocutory application petitioner prays for stay of the disciplinary proceeding once again, though on the first date while considering the matter, it was made clear that there is no stay in the disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner has brought on record through supplementary affidavit, thereafter, the statement of articles of charges including the imputation of the misconduct in support thereof. The grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner to seek stay of the disciplinary proceeding are continuance of the criminal case for the allegation of accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/ - from the complainant, Khirodhar Mandal; that not only the charges are same and similar but the witnesses in both the proceedings are common and also the documents which are enclosed to the charge -sheet in the disciplinary proceeding; that if the proceeding is allowed to continue further, petitioner may be compelled to disclose the evidences which might prejudice the case of the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. & Others reported in : (2014) 3 SCC 636 in support of his contention.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent -B.C.C.L. submits that petitioner has also been proceeded against in the disciplinary enquiry for failure to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and contravention of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is submitted that imputation of misconduct are also sufficient to show the offence of misconduct on the part of the petitioner which can always be enquired into by the Employer, irrespective of pendency of the criminal case for some part of the allegations. It is submitted that disciplinary proceedings are judged on the standard of proof of preponderance of probability and on the basis of material evidence produced by the prosecution with opportunity to the delinquent employee. It may well be proved that petitioner was not maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty and was guilty of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, enquiry can always proceed even in such circumstances when a criminal case has been instituted. Learned counsel for the respondent -company has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Others vs. T. Srinivas reported in : (2004) 7 SCC 442 : [2004 (4) JLJR (SC) 50] in support of his contention. It is also urged that the petitioner is not cooperating in the disciplinary enquiry though Management witnesses were adduced. Management's case has been closed now and it is for the petitioner to adduce any evidence in his defence.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has undergone some surgery during the pendency of the proceeding at Vellore, which has also been brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it is prayed that disciplinary proceeding should be stayed.;