SUMANGAL VEERBAHADUR RANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner in the domestic inquiry. The petitioner submits that he was serving as a Peon in the office of the respondent No. 4 Storage Superintendent, Tirthpuri, District Jalna, since 2-8-1985. On 21-8-1989 the petitioner was suspended by the Joint Managing Director and Secretary of the Maharashtra Warehousing Corporation, Pune, on the charge of misappropriation of one bag of Jawar and one bag of Tur when he was arrested on the same charge by the police of Gandhi Police Station on 21-8-1989. The departmental inquiry was simultaneously proceeded against the petitioner when the criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad, in Criminal Case No. 45 of 1990 for offence under section 381 (1) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN criminal case the petitioner was acquitted by the judgment and order dated 10-5-1994 though the domestic inquiry was commenced on 9-3-1992. The order of dismissal was passed on 7-9-1994 by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) IN this writ petition Miss Mahajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the order of dismissal is bad in law, inasmuch as, the domestic inquiry was vitiated as same was not stayed when requested to by the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Delhi Cloth and General Cloth Mills Limited v. Khushal Bhan), A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 806. On the other hand, Mr. Lathkar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 raises a preliminary contention that the writ petition shall not be entertained as the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 99 of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations. Mr. Lathkar, further submits that there is no bar for continuation of domestic inquiry simultaneously with the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts. It is submitted that though the petitioner had applied for stay of the departmental inquiry he did not take any steps to approach the Court for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is also urged that even if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case during the pendency of the domestic inquiry, the power of the authority concerned to continue the inquiry is not taken away nor its discretion is in any way fettered by reason of the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of (Akhilesh Gupta v. Jamalpur Thane Co-op. Marketing Society Limited and others), 1997 Lab. I. C. 69.