K GANESAN Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE often arising question regarding parallel progress of criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings arises in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is working as a Scientific Officer in Madras Automic Power Station (MAPS), Kalpakkam, which is a very sensitive post. THE standard of integrity and discipline required of such an officer needs hardly to be stressed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that if one reads the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. and the charge memo issued by the first respondent, it would be clear that the charges are identical, they relate to the same occurrences and the witnesses are also the same and therefore, unless the disciplinary proceedings are stayed, the petitioner would be compelled to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings, which would in turn, prejudice him in the criminal proceedings, where he has the right to silence. LEARNED counsel relied on 2006 (1) C.T.C. 689 [Indian Overseas Bank vs. P. Ganesan], (2004) 7 S.C.C. 27 [State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma], (2006) 5 S.C.C. 446 [G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat] and also the oft cited judgment in (1999) 3 S.C.C. 679 [Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.]. LEARNED counsel submitted that while without doubt there cannot be any straitjacket formula which would apply to all cases, in this particular case, the allegations in the F.I.R. are the basis for the charges of misconduct and therefore, in this case, the petitioner's prayer must be granted.