STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHIMANLAL MADHAVJI BHUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned AGP Shri Bhate for the petitioners and learned advocate Shri Abichandani for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged an order dated 19th July 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh in an application filed by the respondent herein in Regular Civil Appeal No.15/06. By the impugned order, the learned Judge though permitted the Government to conclude the departmental inquiry, prevented the competent authority from declaring the final order till the result of the criminal trial is over. Apparently, respondent herein is a Government employee facing departmental action. He is also prosecuted in the criminal court for his alleged misdeeds. His suit against conducting the inquiry was turned down. He therefore, preferred regular appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, above mentioned order came to be passed.

(3.) BY no legal standard, the order can be upheld. Primarily, the concept of not continuing parallel proceedings in civil as well as criminal cases is based on the possibility of exposing the delinquent to the risk of disclosing his defence when the criminal trial is yet to be over. However, by series of decisions, particularly in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416, the Apex Court has laid down parameters for stay of departmental action during the pendency of trial. It is necessary for the delinquent to point out that not only the criminal case as well as departmental action are based on identical set of facts, but complicated questions of law and facts would arise before he could request that the departmental inquiry be stayed. Ordinarily, courts refuse to stay departmental action since delay in such proceedings would result in prejudice to the employer as well as to the delinquent.