1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4399/2010 (Smt. Sharda T. Nair Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal & Others) Date of Order :: 23rd December, 2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. A.K. Bhargava, counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Jain counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been preferred aggrieved by the order dated 17th March, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 481/2006. 2. The prayer made by the applicant in OA was that the departmental enquiry be stayed till disposal of the criminal case pending in the court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur. 3. The petitioner was involved in the departmental enquiry as well as in the criminal case. 4. Charge upon the petitioner was that in the month of April, 2004, she demanded a bribe of Rs. 5500/- from Shri 2 Ashish Jain, S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Jain, R/o G-23, Nandpuri, Hawa Sadak, Jaipur for finalizing his income tax refund matter. She further increased the amount of bribe to Rs. 6000/-. She demanded the amount of bribe of Rs. 6000/- from Shri Ashish Jain and accepted it at her own residence at A- 94B, Nand Puri, Hawa Sarak, Jaipur on 7.5.2004. 5. It was also the charge levelled against the petitioner that she unauthorizedly collected the income tax file of Shri Ashish Jain for the Assessment Year 2003-04 from the Dispatch section of ITO, Ward-2 (3), Jaipur, removed the notice No. 8758 dated 23.3.2004 issued to Shri Ashish Jain, Computation Sheet of IT Refund Voucher No. 080857 dated 17.3.2004 for Rs. 19,208/- from the said file, took the same to her residence and personally delivered the Computation Sheet & Refund Voucher for Rs. 19,208/- to Shri Ashish Jain after receiving illegal gratification of Rs. 6000/- on 7.5.2004. 6. The criminal case is with respect to receiving the illegal gratification. 3 7. Stand of the respondents was that the scope of criminal case and the departmental enquiry is different. Proceedings are independent, and can be continued. Respondents placed reliance upon the decision delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Sarvesh Berry reported in 2005 (10) SCC 471. The departmental enquiry stands concluded, as apparent from the letter dated 16th March, 2010 and only final order is required to be passed. The Tribunal has declined to interfere and has dismissed the original application. In the Original Application, amendment was also sought on the ground that the departmental proceedings be stayed as charge sheet has been issued against Shri Atulesh Sharma, colleague of the applicant, on 6th February, 2009. The amendment application has been disallowed and on merits also, it has been found that the applicant has no case even if the amendment is allowed. 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the aforesaid applications, this writ petition has been preferred. 4 9. Shri Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as per Rule 18 of the CCS Rules, 1965, joint enquiry ought to have been held. The Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application and at the same time adjudicated upon the application, by which amendment was sought. Departmental enquiry cannot be said to be terminated as no final order has been passed so far. 10. Shri Gaurav Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. He submitted that the scope of criminal case and the departmental enquiry is altogether different. Amendment, which was sought has rightly been disallowed. No case was made out so as to make interference. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in not staying passing of final order of departmental enquiry due to pendency of criminal case in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & 5 Others Versus Sarvesh Berry (supra). The fact remains in the instant case that defence has already been disclosed in the enquiry and it stands concluded. Only the final order remains to be passed in accordance with law after giving opportunity of representation, in case it has not been given so far. 12. Consequently, we are not inclined to stay the passing of the final order of departmental enquiry due to pendency of criminal case as after considering the second charge, which is levelled against the delinquent employee, the scope of enquiry is somewhat different that of the criminal case. Particularly when the departmental enquiry stands concluded, on facts we find no justification in staying it due to the pendency of the criminal case. 13. The Original Application was preferred before the Tribunal in the year 2006. The amendment, which was sought, was based on the subsequent event. Though we are not inclined to make interference in the order of rejection of the application, however, we leave the question open, as 6 prayed by the petitioner's counsel, to be agitated before the authority by the applicant, whether it would be appropriate to await the outcome of the departmental enquiry to be held against Atulesh Sharma, colleague of the applicant. As amendment has not been allowed, at this stage, without allowing it, it would not be appropriate to go into the merits of the amendment. 14. It is submitted by Shri Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the question of joint enquiry has already been raised before the concerned departmental authority, competent to pass the final order. 15. If that be so, the concerned authority shall take into consideration the aforesaid aspect also. 16. The order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (ARUN MISHRA).C.J. DK/-