MOHAMMED RUSTAM Vs. J V V N LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer made in the stay application is that the effect and operation of the charge sheet [Annexure 2] and further disciplinary proceedings in pursuance thereof to be stayed. The whole basis of this prayer in the writ petition is, that due to delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has been prejudiced, that continuation of inquiry for almost 15 days is nothing but arbitrary and illegal, as no steps were taken by the disciplinary inquiry authority to conclude the inquiry.

(2.) The other ground given is that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet are almost the same as alleged in the criminal case, wherein he has been acquitted and thus, there is hardly any justification to continue the departmental inquiry.

(3.) In my view, from the record of the inquiry proceedings as made available for my perusal, it is clear that after receipt of the reply to the charge sheet, in view of the pendency of the criminal case, the further proceedings in the inquiry had been kept in abeyance and after the petitioner has been acquitted vide Annexure 7, they are sought to be revived.