AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—The Petitioner is seeking to quash the departmental enquiry initiated by the Respondent, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A and further for a direction to Respondent 1 to hear the objections regarding maintainability as per Annexure-B.
The matter arises in the following manner:
The Petitioner was working as a Tax Inspector with the second Respondent. One Nagaraj lodges a complaint with the Lokayukta Police alleging that when he approached one Seshadri. Assessor for assessing the property, he had demanded bribe and ultimately settled the bribe amount of Rs. 8,000/-. Since he did not want to give bribe, he approached the Lokayukta Police and filed a complaint to take action against the said Seshadri and also the Petitioner. Suffice it to say that Lokayukta Police have filed charge-sheet and the matter is pending trial in Spl. CC No. 142 of 2005 and all the material seized during the investigation are produced in the said case. In the meantime, departmental enquiry is initiated as against the Petitioner. The main objection of the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer is that the proceedings initiated in the Criminal Court as well as the departmental enquiry are one and the same. The imputations and the charges are also identical. Hence, the departmental enquiry be deferred until the Criminal Court decides the issue.
I have perused the papers. Apparently, whether parallel proceedings can be conducted has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena and others, the Apex Court has observed thus:
The only ground suggested in the decisions of the Supreme Court as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that "the defense of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced". This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. It means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, ''advisability'', ''desirability'' or ''propriety'' as the case may be, of staying the departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the Supreme Court''s decisions.
Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court and the law laid down, I am of the view that the question of interference does not arise.
Petition stands rejected.
All contentions are left open.