NARENDER KUMAR Vs. NORTH DELHI POWER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board, now Assistant Manager with respondent, has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order dated 8.1.2004, by which inquiry officer was appointed to act as an inquiring authority in the disciplinary proceedings for major penalty initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum No.VC- 266/2001/SPC/16 dated 10th October, 2003. Petitioner in the alternative seeks a stay of departmental inquiry proceedings till the decision of the criminal case against the petitioner.

(2.) A complaint had been received against the petitioner for demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant's grievance was that he had completed all the formalities for 11 KV transformer and connection. It had been sanctioned but was not being energized. The petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for energizing the connection. FIR No.64/2001 under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 13th November, 2001. There is hardly any progress in the criminal trial and the case has been fixed for arguments on the charges to be framed and the matter is pending before the court of Special/Sessions Judge.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that charges on which departmental inquiry is initiated are the same on which criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Witnesses are also common. Petitioner made a submission on 15th December, 2003 setting out number of grounds and relying on past precedents and decisions praying for withholding of departmental inquiry till the conclusion of criminal trial. The respondents vide the impugned order decided to initiate the departmental inquiry stating that explanation to the show cause had not been received till date. The plea of the petitioner is that if the departmental inquiry is proceeded by the respondents simultaneously with the criminal case, based on the same set of facts, the defence to be taken by the petitioner in the criminal case will be disclosed. If the respondents continue with the departmental proceedings before the criminal case is finally decided then he will be forced to cross-examine the witnesses in departmental proceedings also and this will cause immense prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as his defence will be known to all.