IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.768 of 2009 1. RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, PUSA, SAMASTIPUR, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, PUSA, P.O. & P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR P.O. & P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O. & P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, BIHAR, P.O. & P.S. PUSA, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ------RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. Versus 1. DR.CHENPAL SINGH @ C.P.SINGH, SON OF LATE KUNWAR PAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. DHANIPUR, P.S. GANDHI KPARK, DISTRICT-ALIGARH (UTTAR PRADESH). --------WRIT PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Sameer Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Adv. Mr Ram Kishore Singh, Adv. --------- PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA. JUDGMENT ( 21/05/2010) As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J. In this intra-Court appeal the respondent-Rajendra Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’) 2 and its authorities have assailed the order dated 1.5.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.5048 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the prayer of the respondent-writ petitioner for stay of the departmental proceeding during pendency of the criminal case against him has been partly allowed by directing that said the departmental proceeding in so far as it relates to Charge nos. 1 and 2 of the departmental proceeding shall remain stayed till disposal of the criminal trial. 2. The facts which are not in dispute and to the extent they are relevant for the purpose of this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The respondent-writ petitioner is a teaching employee of the University against whom in an enquiry report of the three men committee of Directorate of Agriculture of Government of Bihar consisting of Director Administration-Cum-Chairman of the Committee, Additional Director, Agriculture and the Registrar of the University it had been found that there were prima-facie materials to show that he had obtained his employment in the University by producing fake and forged certificates and marks sheet of his graduation as well as post graduation examination as well as the degree of Ph.D. Based on the aforementioned fact finding report dated 3.10.2007, the University under the orders of the State Government dated 11th October, 2007 had instituted a First 3 Information Report, Tajpur P.S. Case No. 405 of 2007 dated 13.12.2007 for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and had also separately initiated a departmental proceeding vide resolution dated 12.11.2008 containing the memo of charges. The respondent-writ petitioner thereafter was directed to file his written statement of defence in the departmental proceeding, but he did not choose to do so and after keeping the enquiry proceeding pending for almost six months, he had filed C.W.J.C. No.5048 of 2009 on 20.4.2009 with a prayer to stay the aforesaid departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case lodged against him on the ground that since the criminal action and disciplinary proceeding were grounded on the same set of facts, he would be gravely prejudiced in the pending criminal case by way of disclosing his defence in the departmental proceedings. After the appellant-University had filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing such prayer for stay of departmental proceeding the impugned order allowing the prayer of the petitioner has been passed on 1.5.2009 by the learned Single Judge in the following terms:- “…….This Court is therefore satisfied that to allow the department proceeding to continue with regard to Charge no. 1 and 2 shall cause prejudice to the petitioner. This Court therefore directs that the departmental proceedings shall remain stayed in so far as charge 1 and 2 are concerned till the disposal of the criminal trial but that the departmental proceedings shall continue with regard to charge 3 and 4 which are related to the conduct of the petitioner in 4 course of service……..” 3. Counsel for the appellants assailing the aforementioned directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned order has submitted that stay of the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case cannot be applied as a rule of thumb in all the cases. In this context it has been submitted by him that obtaining employment/promotion by the respondent writ-petitioner on the basis of forged certificates and marks sheets was itself a grave misconduct on the part of the respondent writ-petitioner and therefore he could not have been allowed to continue in service of the University awaiting the result of the criminal case which could take years together for its disposal. In this context, it has also been explained that the criminal case against the respondent writ petitioner is still only under investigation, and thus in departmental proceeding where the enquiry had already been underway it was open for the petitioner to establish that his marks sheet and certificates were neither forged nor fabricated. Counsel in this regard has relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh’ Reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 49, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘CAPT. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.’ reported in 1999(3) 5 SCC 679, in the case of ‘State Bank of India & Ors Vs. R.B. Sharma’ reported in 2004 (7) SCC 27 and in the case of ‘Hidustan Patrolium Corporation Ltd & ors Vs. Sarvesh Vedi’ reported in 2005 (10) SCC 471. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent writ-petitioner has submitted that once it is an admitted fact that two of the four charges in the departmental proceeding and in the criminal case are based on same and identical facts, the inescapable position in law would be that the respondent- writ-petitioner could not be compelled to disclose his defence causing prejudice to him in the criminal case and as such the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted either on facts or in law. Mr. Chaudhary has also placed heavy reliance on the same judgment of M. Paul Anthoni (Supra). 5. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual matrix and legal submissions it would be first necessary to take a comparative account of the allegations in the F.I.R. of the criminal case and memo of charge in the departmental proceedings, which for sake of clarity is quoted here in below in a comparative table:- F.I.R. Dated 11.12.2007 Memo of Charge dated 12.11.2008 lsok esa] Fkkuk izHkkjh iwlk Fkkuk] iwlk leLrhiqjA fo"k;%& =qfViw.kZ 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij lgk;d iz?;kid duh; oSKkfud jktsUnz d`f"k fo'offo|ky; ds foKkiu la0 16@1981 ,oa 26@1983 ds fo:} lgk;d izk/;kid lg du;h oSKkfud ds in ij QthZ 6 ,oa ckn es lg iz/;kid lg ojh; oSKkfud ds in ij fu;qfDr ,oa dkykUrj esa fo'ofo|ky; izk/;kid lg eq[; oSKkfud ds in ij izksUufr izkIr djus ,oa bl vk/kkj ij ljdkjh jkf'k dh {kfr ds dkj.k Mk0 psuiky flag ¼Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag½] fo'ofo|ky; izk/;kid lg eq[; oSKkfud ds fo:} izkFkfedh ntZ djkus ds laca/k esA egk'k;] funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa lwfpr djuk gS fd Jh fot; dqekj flag] funs'kd iz'kklu] d`f"k foHkkx fcgkj iVuk dh v/;{krk esa xfBr foHkkxh; tkap lfefr ds tkap izfrosnu ls mtkxj gqvk gS fd fo'ofo|ky; esa lgk;d izk/;kid lg du;h oSKkfud ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq izdkf'kr foKkiu la[;k 16@81 ds dze esa lgk;d iz/;kid lg duh; oSKkfud ds in ij ,oa lg izk/;kid lg ojh; oSKkfud ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq izdkf'kr foKkiu la[;k 26@83 ds dze esa lgk;d izk/;kid lg du;h oSKkfud in ij mi;qZDr Mk0 psuiky flag ¼Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag½ firk Jh dqaojiky flag] xzke ,oa iks0 /kkuhiqj] ftyk vyhx<+ us xyr 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij xyr <ax ls viuh fu;qfDr izkIr dhA mlh izdkj dkykUrj esa fnukad 27-07-1998 ls fo'ofo|ky; izk/;kid lg eq[; oSKkfud ds in ij izksUufr izkIr dh bl dkj.k mUgksaus osru Lo:i tks jkf'k fo'ofo|ky; ls izkIr dh mlls ljdkjh /ku dh {kfr gqbZ gSA Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag dh mi;qZDr xyr rjhds ls fu;qfDr ,oa izksUufr ds dkj.k muds fo:} izkFkfedh ds fy, dkjZokbZ pykus gsrq ljdkj ds voj lfpo] d`f"k foHkkx fcgkj ljdkjh ds i= la[;k 4@lfp0fo0l0/;kuk0&01@07&5076 ¼lfpok0½@fd`0] iVuk fnukad 11 vDVwcj 2007 ls funs'k izkIr gqvk gSA funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds lac/k esa Jh fot; dqekj flag] funs'kd iz'kklu d`f"k funs'kky;] fcgkj iVuk ds Kkikad 3709@16&fu0¼iz0½xks0@d`0] iVuk fnukad 03- 10-2007 ls izkIr foLr`r ,oa Li"V tkap ,oa tkyh 'kS{kf.kd izek.ki= ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ikuk rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij fo'ofo|ky; izk?;kid ds in ij izksUufr ikukA ¼1½ vkius jktsUnz d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; }kjk izdkf'kr foKkiu la0&16@81 ds dze esa lgk;d izk/;kid Ms;jh dsfeLVzh ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq QthZ ,oa tkyh Lukrd foKku] LukEdksRrj foKku ds vad i= ,oa ih0,p0Mh0 laca/kh izek.k i= lefiZr fd;k gSa ¼2½ jktsUnz d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; }kjk izdkf'kr foKkiu la0 01@89 fnukad 21-06-89 ds v/khu izk/;kid Ms;jh dsfeLVzh ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq iqu% QthZ ,oas tkyh 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= leftZr dj fu;qfDr ik;saA fu;qfDr ds i'pkr fo'ofo|ky; izk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr izkIr dh A ¼3½ vki l{ke inkf/kdkjh ds vuqefr ds fcuk dk;kZy; ls vuqifLFkr gSa ftldh lwpuk vkids }kjk nh xbZ LFkk;h ?kj ds irs ij i= ds ek/;e ls Mkd }kjk Hksth xbZ gS fdUrq Mkfd;k }kjk ;g fyf[kr :i ls lqfpr fd;k x;k gS fd ^^vki xzke ?kuhiqj esa ugha jgrs gsS vkSj u rks vU; yksxksa us vkidk irk crk;kA** blls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd vkius LFkk;h ?kj dk irk Hkh xyr fn;k gSa ¼4½ vkids fo:} fcgkj ljdkjh ds d`f"k foHkkx ds i= la[;k 5076 fnukad 11- 10-2007 }kjk izkIr tkap izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij fo0 fo0 dk;kZy; vkns'k la0 92 fnukad 10-02-2008 }kjk vkidks fuyafcr djrs gq, 7 izfrosnu ¼vuqyXud lfgr½ dh Nk;k izfr blds lkFk layXu djrs gq, vuqjks/k gS fd mi;qZDr Mk0 psuiky flag ¼Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag½ fo'ofo|ky; izk/;kid lg eq[; oSKkfud lEizfr inLFkkfir lat; xka/kh xO; izkS/kksfxd laLFkku] iVuk ds xyr fu;qfDr@izksUufr ds fo:} izkFkfedh ntZ djrs gq, vko';d dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A fo'oklHkktu g0@& vLi"V lgk;d funs'kd fu;qfDr vkidk eq[;ky; ,0ih0vkj0 vkbZ] iwlk fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ;g funs'k fufgr gS fd vki viuk ;ksxnku funs'kd] bZ[k vuqla/kku laLFkku] iwlk dks lefiZr djsaxsA fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fuxZr fuyEcu vkns'k Hkh vkids }kjk fn;s x;s LFkk;h irs ij Mkd }kjk Hkstk x;k tks iqu% fo'ofo|ky; dks okil gks x;k gSA 6. From a conjoint reading of both the F.I.R. of the criminal case and the memo of charge of departmental proceeding it would became clear that both of them are based on the 3 man fact finding inquiry report of Agriculture Department, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^------------foKkiu la[;k 16@1981 Aizfrfyfi layXuA ,oa 16@1983 Aizfrfyfi layXuA ds vk/kkj ij fo'ofo|ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 5065@vkj-,-;w-@iqlk fnukad 3-8-1982 Aizfrfyfi layXuA ds }kjk gqbZ Fkh ftlds vk/kkj ij Mk0 lh0 izlkn uas fnukad 3-8-1982 dks vkSj Mk0 lh0ih0 flag us 2-3-1985 dks viuk ;ksxnku lgk;d izk/;kid lg duh; oSKkfud ds in ij nsdj lat; xka/kh xC; izkoSf/kdh laLFkku] iVuk esa dk;Zjr gSA foKkiu la[;k 16@1981 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksxk fd lgk;d izk/;kid lg duh; oSKkfud ds in ij fu;qfDr ds fy;s fuEure vgZrk Ms;jh VsDuksyksth] Ms;jh baftfu;fjax Ms;jh dsesLV`h] Ms;jh ekbZdzksckbZykWth] Ms;jh ,dksuWfeDl] Ms;jh LVsLfVDVl] Ms;jh ,DlVsalu ,tqds'ku vFkok Ms;jh dsVu izksMD'ku esa mPp f}rh; Js.kh LukRdksrj vFok led{k fMxzh ,oa nks o"kksZa dk 'kS{kf.kd vFkok vuqla/kku dk vuqHko dh vgrkZ fu/kkZfjr FkhA bl vuqHko dh vgRrkZ esa vlk/kkj.k 'kS{kf.kd miyfC/k j[kkus okys izfrLi/kkZ ds ekeys esa NqV nh tk ldrh FkhA blh izdkj Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag ls lacaf/kr foKkiu la[;k 26@83 ds voykswdu ls Li"V gksxk dh lgk;d izk/;kid lg duh; oSKkfud ds in ds fy;s Ms;jh baftfu;fjax esa ,d in] Ms;jh VsDuksykWth esa ,d in Ms;jh dsesLV`h eas 2 in] Ms;jh ekbZdzksckbZyksth esa 2 in ,oa Ms;jh ,DlVsUlu esa 3 inksa ds fy, fjfDr;ka foKkfir gqbZ FkhA bu inksa ds fy;s lacaf/kr fo"k;sa esa mPp f}rh; Js.kh dh LukRdksRrj ;k led{k fMxzh rFkk nks o"kksaZ dh 'kS{kf.kd os vuqla/kku dk vuqHko] ftls mRd`"V dksfV dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds ekeys esa 8 f'kfFky fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] vko';d vgRrkZ fu/kkZjr FkhA Mk0 lh0 izlkn dh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk tks foHkkxh; lafpdk esa miyC/k gS vkSj muds }kjk izLrqr gS] ds vuqlkj mUgsa dq:{ks= fo'ofo|ky; ls Ms;jh VsDuksykWth esa Lukrd ,oa LukdksRrj dh fMxzh Aizfrfyfi layXuA Ms;jh lkbUl dkWyst jk"V`h; Ms;jh vuqla/kku laLFkku] djuky] dq:{ks= fo'ofo|ky; ls izkIr Fkh] bUgksus bl laLFkku ls o"kZ 1986 esa ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh Ms;jh VsDuksykWth esa izkIr dh fdUrq Mk0 lh0ih0flag dh lafpdk ij j[ks i=ksa dh izfrfyfi;ksa ftUgasa lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr fo'ofo|ky; ls izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk] ds vuqlkj os Mh0 ,l0 dWyst vyhx<+ vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ls o"kZ 1973 esa Lukrd AfoKkuA f}rh; Js.kh ,oa 1975 esa vkWjxsfud dsesLV`h AizFke Js.khA esa LukdksRrj ,oa ,fuey gLosum`Zh Ms;jh dsesLVzh esa ih0,p0Mh0 FksA KkrO; gS fd fu;qfDr ds foKkiu esa bl in ds fy;s fuEure vgRrkZ mPp f}rh; js.kh dh Ms;jh dsesLVzh esa LukdksRrj fMxzh fu/kkZfjr Fkh] tks Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag ds ikl ugha FkhA Ms;jh dsesLV`h ,oa vkWjxsfud dsesLVzh nksuksa vyx vyx fo"k; gSA Ms;jh dsesLVzh ds vgRrkZ;qDr in dks foKkfir dj bl in ij Ms;jh dsesLVzh ds LukRdksRrj dh fu;qfDr djuk lekurk ds fl}kUr ,oa lafok/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ,oa 26 ds loZnd izfrdqy FkkA fu/kkZfjr ,oa foKkfir vgRrkZ esa dksbZ ifjorZu fo'ofo|ky; ubZ foKfIr izdkf'kr dj ldrk Fkk tks bl ekeys esa ugha gqvkA vr% Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag dh ;g fu;qfDr iw.kZr% voS/k FkhA bl voS/k fu;qfDr ds fy;s fo'ofo|ky; ds ftEesokj deZpkfj;ksa ,oa inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:} leqfpr dkjZokbZ vko';d gSA 2] 3 ,oa 4 tSlk fd mi;qZDr dafMdk ls Li"V gS fd Mk0 lh0 lh0 flag dks Ms;jh VsDuksykWth dh fdlh 'kk[kk vFkok Ms;jh dsesLVzh esa dksbZ fMxzh izkIr ugha FkhA oLrqr% bUgksus dsesLVzh esa vkxjk fo'okfo|ky; ls Lukrd ,oa LukkdksRrj dh fMxzh dze'k% 1973 rFkk 1975 esa izkIr dh FkhA bl izdkj Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag dks Ms;jh dsesLVzh ds in ij fu;qfDr dh vgRrkZ izkIr ugha FkhA bl laca/k esa Kkr gks fd fu;qfDr ds le; vFkok mlds i'pkr Hkh ,lksfl,V izksQslj vFkok izksQslj ds in ij fu;qfDr@izksUufr ds le; Hkh Mk- lh0 ih0 flag }kjk Lukrd] LukdksRrj vFkok ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh fo'ofo|ky; dks lefiZr ugha dh x;h fQj Hkh fo'okfo|ky; }kjk budh fu;qfDr@izksUufr nh x;hA vk'p;Ztud gS fd mudh fo'ofo|ky; esa yxHkx 23 o"kksaZ dh lsok esa u rks buls ewy fMfxZ;ksa dh izkfZIr dk dksbZ xaHkhj iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj u gh vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ls muds }kjk leZfiZr vad i=ksa bR;kfn dk lR;kiu djk;k x;kA tkap ds dze esa Hkh Mk0 flag }kjk viuh fMxzh fn[kkus esa dkQh vkuk dkuh dh x;h ftlls mRiUu lansg ds ens utj vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; tkdj budh fMfxz;ksa ds laca/k esa tkap iM+yky djus iM+h ftldk QykQy ;g gS fd Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag }kjk jktsUnz d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; dks leZfir Lukrd] LukdksRrj ds vad i= ,oa ih0,p0Mh0 lacaf/kr jftLVzkj] vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ds gLrk{kj ls fuxZr izek.k i= tkyh ,oa QthZ ik;s x;sA lafpdk ij miyX/k pauiky flag] Lukrd foKku] o"kZ 1973] dze la[;k 1469] Mh0,l0 dkWyst] vyhx<+ dk vfHkizekf.kr vad i= ds voyksdu ls 9 ;g Kkr gksxk fd fMxzh izkIr djus dk nkok fd;k gS] tcfd vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ds o"kZ 1973] Lukrd foKku Ach0,l0lh0A ikVZ&AA dh eqy vafre ijh{kk pkVZ ds vuqlkj fLFkfr loZFkk fHkUu ,oa fuEu izdkj gSa & dze la[;k&1469@ukekad.k la[;k ,&711611&psuiky flg i`= ds0ih0 flag] Mh0,l0 dkWyst vyhx<+ dsUnz%& fo"k; Fksmjh izkIrkad O;ogkfjd izkIrkad jlk;u foKku i=&A 23 23 i=&AA 35 dqy % 58 dqy 81 izk.kh foKku i=&A 17 17 i=&AA 20 dqy 37 dqy 54 ouLifr foKku i=&A 17 29 i=&AA 21 dqy 38 dqy 67 dqy izkIrkad % 202 ch0,l0lh0 izkjfEHkd o"kZ dk izkIrkad 188 izkIrkadksa dk dqy ;ksx% 390 Ar`rh; Js.khA blh izdkj Mk0 flag }kjk o"kZ 1975 esa vkWjxsfud dsesLVzh LukdksRrj A,e0,l0lh0A ds vad i= lafpdk ij miyC/k gS] ftlds vuqlkj mUgksaus dqy izkIrkad 684 ,oa ifj.kke izFke Js.kh izkIr djus dk nkok fd;k] tcfd bl laca/k esa vkxjk fo'okfo|ky; ds rr~ laca/kh eqwy vafre ijh{kk pkVZ dh HkkSfrd tkap fuEufyf[kr fLFkfr Li"V gksrh gSA jksy ua0 825@ukekadj.k la[;k 711611 psuiky flag] Mh0,l0 dkWyst] vyhx<+ dsUnz Fksmjh O;ogkfjd izkIrkad i=& A 36 123 dqy 263 & AA 50 & AAA 54 140 --------- ,e0 ,l0 lh0 izhfo;l dk izkIrkad% 228 izkIrksadksa dk dqy ;kax% 491 Af}rh; Js.khA 10 lafpdk ij j[ks Mk0 lh0ih0flag ds ih0,p0Mh0 laca/kh vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ds dqy lafpo ds gLrk{kj ls fuxZr izek.k i= dh Nk;k izfr ls Kkr gksrk gS fd bUgksuas vkxjk fo'okfo|ky; ls ,fuey gLosUMzh ,oa Ms;fjax AMs;jh dsesLVzhA esa twu 1983 esa ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMzxzh izkIr djus dk nkok fd;k gSA tcfd vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; esa vfHkys[ksa dh HkkSfrd tkap lg ;g fLFkfr Li"V gqbZ gS fd vkxjk fo'ofo}ky; }kjk fdlh dks Hkh M;sjh dsesLVzh esa vd rd ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh ugha nh x;h gSA tgka rd ,fuey gLcsuMzh ,oa Ms;fjax esa o"kZ 1983 esa ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh nsus dk iz'u gS ;g fMxzh fuca/ku la[;k 5645 }kjk ek= Jh ,p0 ,u0 ik.Ms dks Mk0 vks0ih0,l0 lsaxj] vkj0ch0,l0 dkWyst] chpiqM+h] vkxjk ds i;Zos{k.k esa nh x;h gSA fo'ofo|ky; ds vfHkys[kksa dh tkap lg ;g Li"V gqvk gS fd Jh psuiky flag firk davjiky flag fuca/ku la[;k 4815 dks Mk0ts0lh0lDlsuk] vkj0ch0,l0 dkWyst] chpiqM+h vkxjk ds i;Zos{k.k esa jlk;u foKku esa 1983 esa ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh nh x;h gSA bl izdkj Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag ds }kjk jktsUnz d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; esa leZfir Lukrd foKku] LukRdksRrj foKku ds vad i= ,oa ih0,p0Mh0 laca/kh izek.k i= iw.kZr% QthZ ,oa tkyh gAA vk'p;Ztud gS fd jktsUnz flag fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fcuk fdlh tkap ,oa lR;kiu ds bl tkyh dkxtkrksa ds vk/kkj ij budh fu;qfDr lgk;d izk/;kid lg duh; oSKkfud rFkk ,lksf'k,V izksQslj ds in ij dh x;h rFkk izksQslj ds in ij izksUufr nh x;hA fo'ofo|ky; ds lacaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa us tu tkyh fMfxZ;ksa dh lR;rk dk irk yxkus dk Hkh dksbZ iz;kl ughas fd;k vksj budh feyh Hkxr ls voS/k fu;qfDr ,oa izksUufr gksrh jghaSA fo'ofo|ky; dks bl vijkf/kd d`r ds fy;s nks"kh O;fDr;ksa dk irk yxkdj mUga nafMr djus dh dkjZokbZ djuh pkfg,A tkap ds dze esa ;g izrhr gqvk fd jktsUnz d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; esa QthZ ,oa tkyh fMxzh ds vk/kkj ij Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag ds vfrfjDr Hkh vU; yksx fu;qDr gks ldrs gSA fo'ofo|ky; dks ,d le; lhek fu/kkZfjr dj bldk irk yxkdj bl laca/k esa vko';d dkjZokbZ djuh pkfg,A tgka rd Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag dk iz'u gS os bu QthZ izek.k i=ksa dks leZfir dj fu;qfDr@izksUufr izkIr djus ds fy;s iw.kZ :i ls ftEesokj gSa bUgksus Lukrd foKku es r`rh; Js.kh esa mRrhZ.krk izkIr dh vkSj vad i= esa vadksa dh gsjkQsjh dj f}rh; Js.kh dk vad i= lefiZr fd;k] bUgksaus LukdksRrj jlk;u foKku AvkSjxsfud dsesLVzhA esa f}rh; Js.kh dh mRrhZ.krk izkIr dh] tcfd bUgksus vad i= esa vadksa dh gsjkQsjh dj izFke Js.kh dk vad i= lefiZr fd;kA blh izdkj bUgksus vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ls jlk;u foKku es ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh izkIr dh fdUrq fuca/kd] vkxjk fo'ofo|ky; ds QthZ gLrk{kj ls ,d tkyh izek.k i= nasdj ,fuey gLcsUMz~h ,oa Ms;fjax AMs;jh dsesLVzhA dk izek.k i= vius dks xyr ykHk igqapkus ds mn~ns'; ls jktsn d`f"k fo'okfo|ky; esa lefiZr dj /kks[kk/kjh dhaA bUgksus tkap ds dze esa fnukad 27-9-07 dks esjs le{k mifLFkr gksdj ;gh QthZ vad i= vkSj ih0,p0Mh0 dh fMxzh fn[kk;h 11 Aizfrfyfi layXuA ftlesa bUgksaus ih0,p0Mh0] dsesLVzh ds uhps bUHkZVM dksek esa Mh0lh0 AMs;jh dsesLVzhA fy[kdj iqu% Ms;jh dsesLVzh esa ih0,p0Mh0 gksus dk Hkze iSnk djus dk diViw.kZ iz;kl fd;kA Mk0 flag }kjk fnukad 27-9- 2007 dks eq>s nh x;h Lukrd foKku] LukRdksRrj foKku ds vad i=ksa ,oas ih0,p0Mh0 sdh fMxzh dk Nk;kizfr bl i= ds lkFk layXu gSA ;s lHkh QthZ ,oa tkyh gS ftlds vk/kkj ij budh fu;qfDr ,oa izksUufr fo'ofo|ky; dfeZ;ksa dh lkaB xkaB ls gqbZA bl izdj dh fu;qfDr fo'ofo|ky; ds LVsP;wV 9 ds vuqlkj Hkh iw.kZr% voS?k gSA Mk0 lh0 ih0 flag }kjk blh izdkj dh Hkkzed lwpuk lgk;d izk/;kid lg ojh; oSKkfud ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq nh x;h gSA Aizfrfyfi layXuA] bl izdkj Li"Vr% bugksus tkucw> dj /kks[k /kM+h vkSj tkylkth dh gSA** 7. Judged on the basis of aforesaid materials it can be safely said that though the allegations in the criminal case and the memo of charges of the Departmental proceedings are based on the three man enquiry report and they relate to production of fake and forged marks sheet/ certificates/ degree by the Respondent writ petitioner for the purposes of obtaining his employment and/or promotion in the University. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court there would be no question of any prejudice to the respondent writ-petitioner in participating in the departmental enquiry, inasmuch as, both in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding onus with regard to production of his own genuine marks sheet and certificate will always lie on him. The respondent writ-petitioner has obtained employment and/or got promotion on the basis of his own declaration of his academic qualification based on his certificates, marks sheet and testimonials. Such facts are within his special knowledge and therefore he cannot claim immunity in not placing his 12 case in the departmental proceeding. 8. In this context it is very significant to note here that the respondent-writ petitioner had already divulged his defence as with regard to authenticity of certificates and testimonials in course of preliminary enquiry conducted by three men committee before whom he had already submitted his explanation. In fact the three men Committee after perusal of his explanation had only come to a finding that his certificates of graduation and post graduation obtained from Agra University in the subject of Chemistry was in any no way referable to the requisite qualification in the subject of Dairy Technology or the Dairy Chemistry which were the minimum essential qualification for his being appointed on the concerned teaching post of University. In fact, his own marks sheet produced in course of verification showing himself to have obtained 523 marks in the B.Sc. examination and to have passed the same in 2nd class was found to be forged, wherein he had secured only 390 marks and placed in 3rd Division. Similarly, his own marks sheet of Post graduation (M. Sc.) examination in Organic Chemistry produced by him for obtaining employment in University showing to have secured 684 marks and placed in 1st Class was found to be again forged, inasmuch as, it was discovered that he had secured only 491 marks and was actually placed in 2nd Class. To top it all, the three men committee in course of preliminary enquiry had also found 13 interpolation even in the Ph.D degree produced by the respondent writ-petitioner wherein the words ‘D.C.’ were inserted for claiming promotion on the post of Associate Professor in the University on the basis of his obtained Doctorate in the field of Dairy Chemistry, whereas, the three men committee in course of their visit and enquiry from Agra University could discover that none in the history of Agra University had ever been awarded Ph.D in Dairy Chemistry. 9. Thus, from the three men committee report it appears that whatever defence the respondent writ-petitioner had to take about his forged certificates, marks sheet and testimonials, had already been revealed by him and therefore his plea of being prejudiced in course of departmental enquiry on account of pendency of a criminal case is a mere pretence. 10. As a matter of fact, criminal proceeding against the petitioner is still at the infancy preliminary stage of investigation as had been admitted by him in his writ petition in paragraph-10, wherein it has been categorically stated by him that:- “It would not be out of place to mention here that the said criminal case is still pending investigation…….”. The issue as with regard to prejudice to an accused against whom only the criminal investigation is pending, was directly gone into by this Court in the case of Ram Lakhan Singh (Supra), where a Division Bench of this Court had held as 14 follows:- “In our opinion, however, the learned single Judge has not taken the correct view of the