A PRABHAKARAN Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the charge-memo issued to him on 18-1-1995 by the respondents on the grounds that simultaneous departmental proceedings cannot be taken against him till the finalisation of Criminal Case No. 32 of 1995 filed against him on the file of the Addl. Magistrate, R. R. District.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner had been working as an assistant Registrar in the University and to the best of his ability he has been discharging his duties. Of late, he was asked to look after the welfare wing of the students and while doing so certain allegations were made against him as to the mismanagement of funds etc. along with five others. It is said that the misappropriation of funds was to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. Under this charge, as many as six persons are booked in the Criminal case No. 32 of 1995, three persons including the petitioner belonging to the University, one person working in the Sub-Treasury Office and other two working in the Social Welfare Department. While matters stood thus, the respondent-University has now contemplated departmental enquiry to be held against the writ petitioner as well as few others. In that connection, the Memo dated 18-1-1995 was issued by the first respondent for causing departmental enquiry. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking stay of the departmental enquiry till the disposal of the criminal proceedings pending before the competent criminal Court.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a vacate stay petition has been filed. At the outset the vacate petitioners have tried to point out that a caveat application as required under Section 148-A C.P.C. was filed in the Office of the High Court enabling a notice to the respondents for making their appearance as and when the matter comes up before this Court for consideration. It is alleged that despite a caveat being filed, the respondents have not been served and therefore an ex parte order has been obtained by the petitioner, which according to the counsel for the respondents any order in the background of the caveat petition has to be necessarily vacated. Even otherwise, it is contended by him that two persons from the Social Welfare Department, against whom charge-sheets were also issued along with the writ petitioner and who are as charged in Crl. Case No. 32 of 1995, filed W.P. No. 6552 of 1995 and this Court granted conditional stay on 7-4-1995 for a period of 10 days. Thereafter, the stay was not extended. Counsel further states that the respondents are desirous to proceed against the petitioner also in the Departmental enquiry along with other persons who are involved in this crime. But for the stay obtained by the petitioner, the enquiry would have reached a final stage. The respondents are finding it difficult to proceed with the Departmental enquiry. As such, they have approached this Court for an appropriate order in this matter.