(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the departmental enquiry initiated by the respondents for the same set of facts on which the petitioner is facing a criminal trial.
(2.) The facts of the case is that the petitioner was working as a Constable in the Police Department, an F.I.R was lodged against him on 29/10/2018 As F.I.R. No. 500/18 at Police Station: Mungeli for the offence punishable u/s 376 of the I.P.C. For the same set of facts, the matter subsequently has been registered and his presently pending before the Sessions Court at Mungeli. Based on the same set of facts, the Department has also issued a charge-sheet on 9/1/2019 to which also the petitioner has given a detailed reply. Now, both the criminal case as also the departmental enquiry is at the stage of recording of evidences. It is, therefore, the request of the counsel for the petitioner that in case, if the evidences before the departmental enquiry are recorded first, the Right to Defence of the petitioner in the criminal case may get adversely affected and therefore the counsel for the petitioner prays that the departmental proceedings be stayed till the outcome of the criminal case.
(3.) According to the counsel for the petitioner, in case if the evidences are recorded in the departmental enquiry his defence would itself get disclosed before evidence in the criminal case gets started, which again may have an adverse impact on the outcome of the criminal case. Therefore, relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 636 and also in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M. G Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 the counsel for the petitioner prays for stay of the departmental enquiry.