1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4354/2007 Vijay Kumawat vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 25.7.2007 HON'BLE MR.PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.T. Gupta,for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the initiation of departmental inquiry by serving the charge-sheet dated 1st June, 2007 (Annex.P/7.) The serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner who is posted as LDC in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div. and Judicial Magistrate), Kherwara, Udaipur. One Ms. Lehru lodged an FIR against the petitioner under Section 376 and 420 IPC on 15th May, 2007 with the allegation that the petitioner developed physical relationship with the said complainant and got her pregnant twice and got abortion done. On the basis of said FIR, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide order dated 18th May, 2007, then the petitioner moved bail application before this Court and this Court allowed the bail application vide order dated 24th 2 May, 2007. The petitioner was, therefore, released on bail on 25th May, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's bail application was rejected by the same learned District & Sessions Judge, Udaipur and now the same learned District & Sessions Judge, Udaipur has ordered departmental inquiry against the petitioner and for that a charge sheet dated 1st June, 2007 has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in that situation, if the challan is filed against the petitioner under Section 376 and 420 IPC, then the trial will also go before the same learned District & Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that from perusal of the facts mentioned in the FIR itself it is clear that it was not a case of any criminal offence and complaint only wanted to extract money from the petitioner and, therefore, she has levelled absolutely false allegations against the petitioner. It is also submitted that in view of the fact that no offence is made out from the FIR, the charge sheet issued against the petitioner deserves to be quashed or at least the proceedings in the departmental inquiry deserves to be stayed till the pendency of the criminal case. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record by the petitioner along with the writ petition. The charge against the petitioner is of serious nature and in 3 the present writ petition the correctness and truth in the allegations of the complainant as levelled in the FIR (Annex. P/2) can not be examined by this Court. Prima facie it can not be held that the allegations can be rejected on its face value. Much cannot be commented on the contents as well as merit of the allegations levelled by the complainant during pendency of the criminal case as well as departmental inquiry. The petitioner's contention that the same Sessions Judge will hear and decide the criminal case and will also proceed with the departmental inquiry then petitioner's case may be prejudiced for that petitioner's writ petition is premature as yet the trial has not reached to the court of District and Session Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the departmental inquiry and trial of criminal case is with same person. Assuming for the sake of arguments even if trial is before the same District and Sessions Judge even by virtue of his official capacity he is required to deal with the matter as per the law and it cannot be presumed that one case will prejudice other. So far as stay of the proceeding in the departmental inquiry on the ground of pendency of the criminal case for the same charge is concerned, yet charges in the criminal case have not been framed. Be it as it may be it is not always necessary to stay the departmental proceedings when the criminal case has been lodged 4 on the basis of similar facts or allegations. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are not covered under the Conduct Rules governing the services of the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not the charges in relation to the conduct of the Government employee for holding the post in Government Department. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, hence, the same is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-