IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.1023 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 29, 2011 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Patial ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : M/s N.S. Chandel and Dinesh Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, who had earlier been serving as Professor (Medicines) in I.G.M.C., Shimla, has been charge- sheeted for departmental action, under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, vide charge-sheet, copy Annexure A-1. He has approached this Court for issuing a direction to the respondent, i.e. his Appointing Authority, to keep the proceedings in abeyance, till the conclusion of criminal proceedings, instituted against him on the same allegations as the ones, on which he has been charge-sheeted for departmental action. 2. Respondent has filed reply, in which it is stated that there is no legal bar to the continuation of the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É departmental proceedings simultaneously, with a criminal trial. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Charge sheet, which has been served upon the petitioner, is Annexure A-1. Article of Charges and Statement of Imputations, as per this charge-sheet, are as follows: “Articles of charges against Dr. Ramesh Kumar Patial, Professor, Medicine. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Patial while working as Professor (Medicine) in Dr. RPGMC, Kangra at Tanda, has misconducted himself by being involved in the CPMT paper leakage scam and thereby violating the provisions of Rule-3 of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. List of imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour in support of article of charges against Dr. Ramesh Kumar Patial, Professor (Medicine) As informed by the Home Department, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Patial, Professor (Medicine), Dr. RPGMC Kangra at Tanda has remained in judicial custody for his involvement in CPMT paper leakage scam on 25.11.2006. He was bailed out on 25.11.2006 by Ld. JMIC-III. A criminal case under Section 418 & 120 has been registered against this Officer for being involved in the CPMT paper leakage scam by the police department and the investigation is under progress.” 5. From a bare reading of the Article of Charges and the Statement of Imputations, it is clear that petitioner is sought to be proceeded against departmentally for certain acts, which are the subject matter of criminal proceedings, É3É instituted against him. Specific allegations and particulars of the offences/acts of misconduct, allegedly committed by the petitioner, do not find mention in the charge sheet. Reference is made only to a criminal case that has been registered against the petitioner and also to the fact that he had been arrested in connection with that case and remained in judicial custody. Charge sheet is too vague to enable the petitioner to effectively defend himself. 6. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet, copy Annexure A-6 and requested that pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings, departmental action may be kept in abeyance. No order has been passed by the respondent on this request, which is made in concluding para of the said reply. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for dealing with situations of this kind, that is to say, when a criminal case is pending against a government servant and at the same time his employer initiates departmental action against him for those very acts, which are the subject matter of criminal proceedings, in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471 and Uttranchal Road Transport Corporation and others Vs. Mansa Ram Nainwal, (2006) 6 SCC 366. É4É 8. Noticing the guidelines, laid down in the aforesaid three cases, in Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others (2007) 10 SCC 385, Hon’ble Supreme Court passed order that if the employee made a prayer before the departmental authorities for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance, till the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the employer would consider such request, in the light of the principles set out in the aforesaid judgments. 9. In the present case, petitioner did make a request to the respondent, i.e. his employer, for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance, vide Annexure A-6, i.e. his reply to the charge-sheet, but no order has been passed by the disciplinary authority, i.e. the respondent, on such request. Present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner, made in Annexure A-6, for keeping the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the conclusion of criminal proceedings, in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to three judgments, and till final decision is taken by the respondent on the aforesaid request of the petitioner, departmental proceedings shall remain stayed. Petition stands disposed of. September 29, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.