RAM BABU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the departmental enquiry proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that on similar charges a criminal trial is pending against the petitioner and, on the same charges, a domestic enquiry has been initiated. Consequently, the departmental enquiry proceedings should be stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that two enquiries on the same charges could not proceed simultaneously and, therefore the domestic enquiry proceedings should be quashed.

(3.) The Supreme Court in number of decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, AIR1960 SC 806 , (1960 )I LLJ520 SC , [1960 ]3 SCR227 , Kushewar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Anr, AIR1988 SC 2118 , 1988 (36 )BLJR755 , JT1988 (3 )SC 576 , (1988 )II LLJ470 SC , 1988 (2 )SCALE641 , (1988 )4 SCC319 , [1988 ]Supp2 SCR821 , 1989 (1 )UJ17 (SC ), Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., 1999 [82] FLR 627 and in State Bank of India and Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, 2004 LLR 950 have held that the proceedings in a criminal case and departmental proceedings could go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts and that the evidence in both the proceedings were common, in that eventuality, the departmental proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the trial. However, in no circumstances, the departmental proceedings could be quashed.