ASHOK KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 8.1.2010 (P-8), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal trial in case FIR No. 15, dated 1.2.2008, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, registered at Police Station City Ferozepur. A further prayer has been made for directing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to stay the proceedings of departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner till the decision of the criminal case pending against him in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a case FIR No. 15, dated 1.2.2008, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station City Ferozepur, on a complaint made by the Superintendent Post Offices, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (P-1). The allegations against him are that while working as Sub Post Master, Makhu Gate Post Office, Ferozepur City, he misappropriated Government funds amounting to Rs. 2,21,796/- by showing fraudulent withdrawals from different Recurring Deposit Accounts from the post office. On 16.2.2009, challan in the criminal case was presented in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, and the case is at the stage of framing of charges against the petitioner.

(3.) Prior to registration of the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.12.2007. a departmental inquiry has also been initiated against him. On 10.12.2008, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules') with the similar allegations as have been leveled in the FIR (P-2 & P-3). On 2.11.2009, the petitioner made a representation for dropping the departmental inquiry till the decision of the criminal case registered against him (P-4). On 29.12.2009, he was informed that the departmental proceedings could be conducted simultaneously with the criminal trial (P-5). It has been claimed by the petitioner that the witnesses cited both in the departmental inquiry as well as in the criminal case are the same and in case both the proceedings are allowed to continue simultaneously, his defence is likely to be prejudiced.