MADHU BHARTI Vs. S.D. HARI MANDIR GIRLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who appears in person prays for adjournment as counsel is not available. The request is opposed. I do not think that this is a fit case for adjournment inasmuch as in the connected matter which has been disposed of by me, there was a stay operating against conduct of the departmental proceedings, and which departmental proceedings were going on since 2009 and the writ petition was only filed in the year 2010. I have therefore perused the records of the case. I may note that I have allowed the connected writ petition filed by the petitioner and in which petitioner has been allowed to engage a defence assistant.

(2.) IN this writ petition, petitioner prays for quashing of the chargesheet dated 27.4.2009.

(3.) IT is settled law that this Court is not a fact finding body. It is in the enquiry proceedings that issues of truth and falsity will have to be looked into. I have had an occasion to examine a similar aspect as regards to the entitlement of Courts to stay disciplinary proceedings during its continuance in the case of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 4222/2013 decided on 8.7.2013. The relevant paras of the said judgment are paras 3 to 5 and which read as under:-