CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8292 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 10 ,2011 Smt.Kaushalya Devi .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana State and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. A. P. Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner married respondent No.7 on 26.6.1988. There is long pending litigation between the petitioner and her husband respondent No.7. The petitioner has filed criminal cases under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, for which respondent No.7 has been convicted. It is alleged that respondent No.7 got married to Smt.Manju (respondent No.8) on 22.11.2008. The petitioner accordingly moved an application against her husband on 27.1.2009 for taking action against him for contracting second marriage as he is a public servant. It is stated that preliminary enquiry was held and version of the petitioner was found to be correct. Respondent No.7 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8292 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: has filed a divorce petition on 27.1.2009, which is stated to be to delay the departmental proceedings, which have been initiated against him. It is pointed out that earlier two divorce petitions filed were dismissed on 19.12.1991 and 1.2.2006 but again the divorce petition has been filed, which is now fixed for 30.6.2011. On account of pendency of this divorce petition, the charge sheet issued to respondent No.7 has been kept in abeyance till the decision of the divorce petition. The petitioner has, thus, filed this petition to expedite the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings is a matter between the department and the employee i.e. Respondent No.7. The petitioner would not have any interest in the departmental proceedings, except for being a witness. Counsel could not explain as to what right the witness will have to see that the departmental proceedings are expedited or to say that these are wrongly held in abeyance. The counsel has made reference to the case of Ranbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007(3) RSJ 245, where it is observed that disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed as a matter of course due to pendency of criminal trial. These observations have been made by Division Bench of this Court on an approach made by the delinquent employee, who was seeking stay of departmental proceedings due to pendency of criminal trial. It is observed that the departmental proceedings can not be permitted to wait endlessly till the conclusion of trial. It is also observed that staying of the proceedings at the stage would only serve the interest of the accused. The ratio of law in this case can not be made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8292 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: applicable to the present case either in facts or in law. The reliance on this judgment is wholly misconceived. The petitioner would not have any locus to pray for expediting the departmental proceedings against respondent No.7 or to urge that these have been wrongly held in abeyance to await outcome in divorce proceedings. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. May 10,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE