ARUN KUMAR RAGHVANSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unusual case indeed. The Petitioner, a delinquent servant of the sensitive organisation, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, mumbai, while holding the post of Assistant Security Officer had filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench praying for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 11. 2. 1998 and for a declaration that the allegations did not amount to misconduct. It appears from the impugned judgment and Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal that these two prayers were not pressed and the only relief sought by him was that the departmental enquiry proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case lodged against him before the Criminal Court. The Tribunal by its impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) AS usual when a delinquent employee is also an accused before the criminal Court facing the criminal charges of the same nature for which he also has to face a disciplinary proceedings, he prays for stay of the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Whether to stay the departmental enquiry till the final result of the criminal case always depends upon the facts in each individual case. The Supreme Court has explained the position on this point is reported at in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold mines Ltd. and another. 1998-I-CLR 191. We will go to the aforesaid case a little later after considering the peculiar facts of this case.

(3.) THE striking features of this case are that the petitioner is in employment of one of the sensitive organisations of the Central Government. Secondly he is holding a post of Assistant Security Officer, in charge of the security of the whole organisation. The post naturally requires the highest degree of confidence of the incumbent, who must be above suspicion like a Caeser's wife.