M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE only question that falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the continuance of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him.
(2.) THE petitioner is working as Estate Manager in the respondents -C.C.L. He has been implicated in a criminal case instituted under Section 13(ii) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, being Case No. RC 3(A) of 2004. It is contended by the petitioner that the C.B.I, submitted charge -sheet and charges were framed in the criminal case on 28.9.2004. Thereafter on 27.5.2005 the respondents issued memorandum along with articles of charges in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner filed representation for keeping the proceeding in abeyance on the ground that on the same set of allegations criminal case against him is going on. It is alleged that the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents rather inquiring authority was appointed and the petitioner was directed to report to the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents in continuing the departmental proceeding in spite of the fact that the criminal case is in advance stage, is wholly unjustified and mala fide. Learned Counsel submitted that since the allegations and/or the charges against the petitioner in both the criminal case and departmental proceeding are same and similar, the departmental proceeding is to be stayed. Learned Counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., ; State Bank of India and Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471.
(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no bar in continuance of the criminal case and departmental proceeding simultaneously. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471.;