CW 3145/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.3145/2010 Rajesh Choudhary Versus State & Ors. Date of Order : 10/03/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Alok Sharma, for petitioner Petitioner while serving as Police Inspector and a member of Anti-Terrorist Squad & Special Operation Group, Rajasthan, Jaipur. On a private complaint NO.9/2006 by the wife of deceased Dara Singh being sent by Judicial Magistrate Jaipur, U/S 156(3) CrPC, FIR- 396/2006 which, as informed to this Court, is still pending investigation; at the same time, at the behest of the petitioner, cross FIR was registered at police station Mansarovar, Jaipur against deceased Dara Singh for offence U/Ss 307, 332 & 353, IPC read with S.25 of Arms Act & S.3 of Protection of Public Property Act, It also appears that at one stage, complainant (wife) approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc. Petition NO.1015/07 U/s 482 CrPC against order dt.28/05/07 whereby application filed by complainant on 18/04/2007 U/s 157(1) & 210, CrPC was finally rejected. Apart from criminal case pending investigation against petitioner, it appears that on grievance being raised to the State Government, a fact-finding inquiry has been initiated against members of anti-terrorist CW 3145/10 //2// squad vide order dt.17/11/2007 (Ann.3), in pursuance thereto, Member of the Board of Revenue Ajmer was authorised to hold fact- finding inquiry and to submit its report to the State Government. Under the directions of State Govt., petitioner was called upon vide letters dt.03/12/2008 (Ann.9), dt.30/12/2008 (Ann.10), dt.22/01/2009, and dt.01/02/2010 to appear before the fact finding inquiry authority. The petitioner has approached the Court at this stage with the grievance that once criminal case has been registered and is pending investigation, initiation of fact finding inquiry parallel to criminal proceedings is not permissible under the law in the facts of instant case and if he is compelled to disclose his defence before fact finding authority, it would cause prejudice to his defence to be led during trial in criminal case. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions in M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Cold Mines Ltd (1999 (3) SCC p.679); Uttaranchal Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Mansaram Nainwal (2006(6) SCC 366), Noida Entrepreneurs Assoc Vs. Noida & Ors (2007(10) SCC 385 & Hindustan Petro. Corpn. Vs,.Sarvesh Berry (2005(10) SCC 471). Submission made by Counsel is without any substance for the reason that criminal case instituted against petitioner is pending investigation and it would take its own course CW 3145/10 //3// but the State Government under action impugned has decided to hold a fact finding inquiry and if at all the authority arrives at prima facie conclusion to initiate disciplinary action against petitioner, that can certainly be taken, if permissible under law and initiation of fact finding inquiry at this stage under order impunged by State Government, in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to have caused prejudice to him. Judgments (supra) on which Counsel placed reliance, are of no assistance for the reason that these are cases where disciplinary inquiry against delinquent under disciplinary rules were initiated simultaneously pendente criminal case during trial; while in the facts of instant case, at this stage, the action being impugned is initiation of fact finding inquiry only and on its conclusion, as observed (supra), it will be for State Government to take further action or not if permissible under law. This court does not find any justification to interfere in the action impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/ 3145CW2010Mar10Ds.doc