A.N. MAKWANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE challenging Annexure -A/1 suspension order, Annexure -A/2 charge -sheet and Annexure -A/3 order on the representation relating to revocation to her suspension the applicant prays for restraining the respondents from proceeding with the departmental inquiry against her till the outcome of the criminal case launched by the CBI. She further prays for directing the respondents to revoke her suspension and to take her back on duty with consequential benefits. Briefly stated, the facts which have led to filing of this OA as stated by the applicant are that while working as Assistant in the Chemical Industries Post Office, Vadodara, she was suspended from service on 07 -9 -2010 in connection with the alleged illegal "second premature closure of Senior Citizens Saving Scheme Accounts" in the said post office. She was interrogated by the CBI on 25 -9 -2010 and thereafter her suspension continued to be extended from time to time. Applicant was served with Annexure -A/2 memo of charges dated 16 -12 -2010 and a departmental inquiry started on 08 -3 -2011. The inquiry was in progress at the time of filing this OA and the last hearing of the departmental inquiry was on 13 -4 -2012, at the stage of examination of prosecution witnesses. On 12 -3 -2012 the applicant was summoned to attend the CBI Court, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. As the departmental inquiry and CBI Court proceedings are based on the same charges, documents and witnesses applicant prays for staying the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal trial initiated by CBI. She further states that CBI started the investigation much earlier whereas the departmental charge -sheet was issued three months thereafter and hence the departmental inquiry could have been postponed till the CBI case reached a final conclusion. Applicant alleges that departmental proceedings have been initiated in violation of Vigilance Manual Vol. I, Chapter III, para -1 -7 and hence Annexure -A/2 charge memo is not sustainable. Applicant states that the criminal case charged against her involves complicated questions of facts and law.

(2.) THE following reliefs have been sought by the applicant in this OA:

(3.) A rejoinder was filed by the applicant refuting the pleadings in the reply and also reiterating the contentions in the OA.