BHAG SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition takes exception to the decision of the Enquiry Officer dated 2nd March, 2012. By that order, the Enquiry Officer decided to segregate the charges and proceed with the inquiry only in respect of charges 1 to 4 and 6 and 7.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced because of that approach. In that, the petitioner is already facing criminal trial for charge of misappropriation. The said criminal case refers to the instances from year 1995 onwards till the filing of the complaint, and for that reason, if the petitioner is forced to participate in the enquiry, may have to expose his defence in connection with those matters while answering the charges at serial nos.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 in the disciplinary enquiry. To obviate that situation and to do complete justice to the petitioner, it would be appropriate to stay the entire enquiry and not limited to charge no.5 as has been done by the Enquiry Officer by the impugned order. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on paragraph 16 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and others, 2014 3 SCC 636.