RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by way of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 28 -11 -2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 590/2006. which is Annexure P -3 to the petition. The orders dated 24 -5 -2006 and 1 -7 -2006 have also been challenged.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present case are that Petitioner was an employee of the Respondents. There had been a theft in the factory of the Respondents and Petitioner was suspected. It was alleged against the Petitioner that stolen property belonging to Respondents was found in the dicky of Petitioner's scooter. The said material was also seized. Petitioner was kept under suspension by order dated 28 -10 -1991. Petitioner was also prosecuted in a Criminal Court and ultimately, according to the Petitioner, he was acquired by the Criminal Court by order dated 23 -12 -2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur in Criminal Case No. 1285/1994.

(3.) BEFORE the acquittal of the Petitioner, Petitioner was also issued a charge -sheet on 22 -1 -1992 and the inquiry was continuing against the Petitioner. Petitioner preferred an application before the Tribunal making a grievance that since the Petitioner is simultaneously being prosecuted in a departmental enquiry and as well as in a criminal case, therefore, the departmental enquiry is liable to be stayed. The said application was filed before the Tribunal and it was registered as O.A. No. 375/1992. The Tribunal by an order dated 1 -9 -1992 did not stay the departmental enquiry. The said original application was finally decided on 3rd March, 1994. The Tribunal disposed of the said case by holding that there is no reason to stay the departmental enquiry. Against the said judgment dated 3rd March, 1994 passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court by an order dated 1 -8 -1994 directed that disciplinary proceedings pending against the Appellant shall remain stayed during the pendency of the criminal prosecution. Thereafter, the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by judgment dated 23 -12 -2005. Since the departmental enquiry was continued against the Petitioner in spite of his acquittal, therefore, the Petitioner preferred another application before the Tribunal. The said application was registered as O.A. No. 590/2006. The said application ultimately was dismissed by the Tribunal by an order dated 28 -1 1 -2006, which is placed on record as Annexure P -3. By this order the Tribunal again dismissed the application of the Petitioner by holding that even though Petitioner has been acquitted yet the departmental enquiry can be continued. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present petition has been preferred. Mr. Sheel Nagu. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has put forth the following submissions: