Kedarnath Mahapatra vs Union Of India

The appellant before this Court has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3680 of 2018, dated 04.05.2020.

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court, who is serving as a Principal at Atomic Energy Central School-2, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as well as prosecution for an offence under Section 354(a) of IPC read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. An FIR was lodged on 24.11.2017 and later on he was placed under suspension by an order dated 07.11.2017 and enquiry proceedings were initiated on 29.11.2017. The enquiry officer was appointed on 01.08.2017 and in that backdrop, the writ petition was preferred before this Court for staying the departmental enquiry proceedings. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present writ appeal has been preferred and the fact remains that there was no interim order granted by the Division Bench. We are in the year 2022.

This Court is of the considered opinion that as no interim order was granted by the Division Bench, the respondent is under an obligation to conclude the departmental enquiry at an early date.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V (2014) 3 SCC 636 has held as under:-

“19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the trial court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to cooperate with the trial court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that the trials often linger on for a long time on account of non-availability of the defence lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the inquiry officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that departmental enquiry proceedings can be kept in abeyance for a period of one year and in the present case, the FIR itself was lodged in the year 2017, charge sheet was issued in 2017 and the question of staying the disciplinary proceedings at this juncture does not arise.

The respondent is directed to conclude the departmental enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed of.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.