K MUTHULI RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17. 12. 2007 passed in O. A. No. 1106 of 2004 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad and to direct the respondents not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 19. 4. 2004 issued by the second respondent till conclusion of the criminal proceedings in c. C. No. 12 of 2004 on the file of the special Court for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

(2.) THE petitioner, while working as commissioner of Income Tax at Hyderabad, was suspended from service for having found in possession of assets and pecuniary resources disproportionate to her known sources bf income, and a charge memo dated 19. 4. 2004 was issued to her. The central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'cbi') also filed a case against her under Section 173 Cr. P. C. and under Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 and the same was registered as C. C. No. 12 of 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representations dated 12. 5. 2004 and 28. 7. 2004 requesting the second respondent to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till disposal of said criminal case and for supply of copies of the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet, but without passing any orders on the said representations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the second respondent, vide order dated 24. 9. 2004, and the date of hearing of the preliminary enquiry was fixed as 1. 11. 2004. Therefore, the petitioner filed o. A. No. 1106 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the second respondent vide charge memo dated 19. 4. 2004 till conclusion of the criminal proceedings in C. C. No. 12 of 2004, but the said O. A. was dismissed, vide order dated 17. 12. 2007. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE second respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that as the criminal case filed against the petitioner is pending disposal from the year 2004, now, seeking stay of the disciplinary proceedings till conclusion of the said criminal case is untenable. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2004, are required to be concluded expeditiously in the administrative interest of the department, more so when the scope of disciplinary proceedings in view of Article 2 of the charges being different from the subject-matter of criminal case pending against her. It is further stated that in view of the interim stay granted by this Court, undue delay and prejudice is causing to the departmental proceedings.