BHANUPRASAD M JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Anand L. Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

(2.) BY way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the departmental proceedings initiated against him be kept in abeyance till the criminal case is decided.

(3.) MR.Sanjay D. Suthar, learned advocate appearing for MR.N.K.Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the nature of charges and evidence are similar in both the departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings and the witnesses would also be the same, therefore, if the departmental proceedings are permitted to be proceeded with, it would cause great prejudice to the petitioner and it would affect his defence in the criminal case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly roped into the criminal case on the basis of a statement of a co-accused and there is ample evidence on record to substantiate the say of the petitioner, that he was on duty when the alleged incident referred to in the F.I.R. had taken place. That in any case, the competent Criminal Court would be in a better position to adjudicate the matter rather than the Inquiry Officer. It is further contended that there are 51 witnesses in the criminal case and it is likely that the defence of the petitioner would be prejudiced by the statements of witnesses, who are examined in the departmental proceedings. It is further contended that as per Circular of the Government dated 19.4.2004, if the incident and the evidence in the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are the same, the final outcome of the departmental proceedings would be subject to the final outcome of the competent Criminal Court, therefore, for this reason as well, it would have been appropriate if the departmental proceedings had been kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal case.