(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Librarian in the respondent No.2/Maharaja Agrasen Model School. By the writ petition, challenge is laid to the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner by means of the memorandum dated 15.4.2013.
(2.) BEFORE I advert to the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state that departmental proceedings can only be stayed if there is a fundamental lack of jurisdiction or such other strong basis for stopping the continuation of the departmental proceedings. It is possible that the authority conducing the enquiry may not have jurisdiction or the charges could already have been adjudicated before or ex facie without further argument, the charges even if accepted as correct, no infraction is made out. This Court does not and cannot sit as an Enquiry Officer to look into the merits of the charges and which is a function which is reserved for the departmental authorities. The following contentions have been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner: -
(3.) SO far as the first argument that the petitioner herself has filed a writ petition in which the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No.2 - school with respect to Article of Charges IV and V, in my opinion that is not a ground for staying of the departmental proceedings. If I permit such an argument to be urged for being accepted it would mean that any employee can pre -empt the departmental proceedings by simply filing a writ petition and raising issues which the school proposes to enquire in the departmental proceedings. For the sake of completion of narration I must state that it is not as if writ petition has been decided and the issues have been found in favour of the petitioner for the same to be rejected for commencement of the departmental enquiry on the said Articles of Charges IV and V contained in the memorandum dated 15.4.2013. The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected.