RANA UMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking stay of Chatra District Departmental Proceeding No. 67 of 2012 till the adjudication of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No. 157 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 766 of 2012. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year, 1982. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was detected that one Kumar Vijay Singh was found illegally adjusted in the service while the petitioner was working in the office of Inspector of Police -I, district -Chatra. An Enquiry Report dated 12.09.2012 was submitted in which it was found that the petitioner conspired with some other persons and got the said Kumar Vijay Singh illegally adjusted by Chatra District Order No. 841 of 2005 corresponding to Memo No. 762/ra.ka. dated 15.10.2005. An F.I.R. was lodged on 12.09.2012 under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 379 read with Section 120B I.P.C. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner vide Memo dated 21.10.2012. In these facts, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking stay of departmental proceeding till the adjudication of the criminal case.

(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which a stand has been taken by the respondents that a criminal case was filed and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, only after conducting preliminary enquiry, in which, it was found that the petitioner is guilty of forging documents and illegally getting the brother -in -law of his elder brother namely, Kumar Vijay Singh, appointed. The respondents have relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the contention that it is not the requirement in law that till the conclusion of the criminal case, the departmental proceeding should be stayed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a contention that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Capt M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another", reported in : (1999) 3 SCO 679, which has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent cases and which still holds the Held, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner should be kept at abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal case. Relying on the orders as contained in Annexure -4 (series) passed by the respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the department itself has adopted a similar policy in the cases of other delinquent employees however, in the case of the petitioner the request for staying the departmental proceeding has not been accepted by the respondents.