PROJECT MANAGER ONGC Vs. LALCHAND VAJIRCHAND CHANDNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Upon a question of considerable importance (whether a parallel departmental proceeding should be conducted against an employee during the pendency of a criminal proceeding) being raised before our brother P. D. Desai J. he admitted the petition and granted interim stay after hearing the other side (O. N. G. C.). If the interim stay was not granted the petition would have been rendered infructuous. Indeed it would have amounted to dismissal of the petition for there was no purpose or point in closing the doors of the stable after the horse had fled. If the departmental proceedings were completed before the decision in the criminal case there was no question of slaying the departmental proceedings. The entire petition which was admitted would have been rendered infructuous. Under the circumstances the order granting stay is unexceptionable for no other order could have been passed. We do not propose to examine or pronounce on the question of competence of an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent as the appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned single Judge had no jurisdiction in the matter having regard to rule 2 (9B) Clauses (b) & (c) of the High Court appellate Side Rules 1960 which read as under :

(3.) The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.