BRIJ BHUSHAN DWIVEDI Vs. DEPUTY CHIEF, EXECUTIVE OFFICER KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions raise a common question of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. Brij Bhushan Dwivedi, who is petitioner in writ petition No. 5035/83 is Upper Division Assistant in the Lucknow office of Khandi and Village industries Commission. On 17 -3 -81 FIR (Annexure 1) was lodged against the petitioner at the police station concerned, under Section 409/420/467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of which a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. After necessary investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and now the criminal case is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

(2.) IT may be stated that the petitioner had surrendered in court on 6 -4 -81 and was released on bail on 14 -4 -81. By an order dated 2 -5 -81 (Annexure 2), the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 6 -4 -81, the date of his arrest. This order was passed in terms of Regulation 30 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1961.

(3.) SUSHIL Kumar Srivastava; who is petitioner in writ petition No. 4041/84 is Senior Accountant in the U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Lucknow (hereinafter called, the Corporation). On 7 -8 -84, FIR under Section 409/467/468 was lodged at the police station, Hazratganj, Lucknow against the petitioner by Hira Lal Agarwal, Manager (Finance) of the Corporation on the basis of which a criminal case No. 126/84 has been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner surrendered in court and was released on bail on 2 -6 -84. The petitioner, in the meantime, was suspended by an order dated 7 -2 -84 (Annexure 2). The departmental proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner and a charge sheet dated 17 -4 -84 has been issued in which the charges mentioned are the same as are to be considered by the criminal court in criminal case No. 126/84. The petitioner gave an application (Annexure 3) to the Managing Director of the Corporation requesting him to stay the disciplinary proceedings till the disposal of the criminal case but the application was rejected on 7 -7 -84. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the suspension order dated 7 -2 -84 (Annexure 2) may be quashed and the opposite parties may be directed by a writ of mandamus to stay the departmental proceedings till the disposal of criminal case.