RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering Services of the U. P. Government and was promoted as Assistant Engineer and subsequently given charge of Executive Engineer from 14.7.1997. He was placed under suspension by the order dated 22.12.1998 on grave charges of financial irregularities along with others. An F.I.R. was also filed against him and others at police station Kotwali, Ballia on 19.2.1998 vide Annexure-1 to the petition. The petitioner has been charged for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 34,98.622. True copy of the F.I.R. is Annexure-2 to the petition. True copy of the suspension order dated 22.12.1998 is Annexure-3 and true copy of the charge-sheet is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thus, both, criminal and departmental proceedings are going on against the petitioner.

(3.) It is alleged in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that both criminal and departmental proceedings are based on identical and similar facts and hence the departmental proceedings should be stayed till the completion of the criminal case. In paragraph 20 of the petition, it is alleged that if departmental proceedings is allowed to continue that will prejudice the petitioner in the criminal case. In paragraph 21, it is alleged that in the criminal proceeding, the charges are to be proved by the prosecution without compelling the accused to give his version while in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner is bound to disclose his version and that will prejudice the petitioner in the criminal case. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Cold Mines Limited and others, 1999 (2) ESC 1009. and has prayed that departmental proceedings be stayed.