1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Vinod Kumar Soni Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2026/2009) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :- March 29, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Rajeev Surana, for the petitioner. The petitioner has made following prayers before this Court : (i) That the entire record pertaining to this case may kindly be recalled. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned notice dated 25.11.2008 as well as the illegal department inquiry may kindly be quashed and set aside in the alternative till the decision of the criminal case, the department inquiry pertaining to charge sheet No.1931 (Dated 24.08.2007) may kindly be put in abeyance. (iii) By an appropriate writ, order direction the action of the respondents in holding illegal inquiry and the departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the same charges and subject matter pertaining to the criminal case for which no departmental inquiry ought to have been initiated till final decision in the criminal case and against the notice dated 25th November 2008 may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unconstitutional. 2 (iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to may also kindly be granted in his favour. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he is a conductor working in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('RSRTC', for short). On 24th August, 2007, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet wherein three charges were framed against the him : firstly, on 03.08.2007 when the Bus No.1894, on route to JCA-Beawar was inspected at 10:10 am, thirty-eight passenger were discovered on the bus. However, the petitioner, although was the conductor on the said bus, was found absent; secondly, on 03.08.2007, the petitioner was supposed to go on a particular bus at 10.40, but because of his absence, the bus had to be cancelled. Not only the passenger suffered inconvenience, but the RSRTC also suffered a financial loss of Rs.1,402/-; thirdly, in the evening of 03.08.2009 while the officers, who had carried out the inspection and who had clearly noted about the petitioner's absence in the day time, were sitting in the office, the petitioner, armed with a sword, came to the office and threatened the officers. When the people tried to calm him down, he struck the tire of the private car of the Chief Manager, whereupon the tire burst. Even after the petitioner was disarmed, he gave threatening to the officers that he would kill them. 3 Due to the incident, on 03.08.2007 a FIR, FIR No.315/2007, was lodge at Beawar City Police Station for offence under Section 427 IPC and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. On 09.08.2007, the petitioner was arrested in the said criminal case and was sent to judicial custody. He was in police and judicial custody till 14.08.2009. According to the petitioner, he immediately filed his reply. According to him, due to sudden illness, he could not attend his duties. In order to prove its case, the Department examined two witnesses. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined three witnesses. Although the petitioner was given a chance to have his own statement recorded, but he declined to do so. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. On 25.11.2008, the petitioner received a second show cause notice along with the copy of the inquiry report. According to the petitioner, the case is still pending before the disciplinary authority. Mr. Rajeev Surana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a single contention before this Court that in case the departmental inquiry were not restayed, the petitioner's defence in the criminal trial would be prejudiced. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to stay the further proceedings of the departmental inquiry. In order to 4 buttress his contention, he has relied upon the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. [(1999)3 SCC 679]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case law cited at the bar. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable for the following reasons : firstly, during the course of inquiry before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner has already revealed his defence. Since the Inquiry Officer has already submitted the inquiry report, the chapter of the inquiry pending before the Inquiry Officer stands closed. Since the petitioner has already revealed his defence during the course of inquiry before the Inquiry Officer, it is too late in the day for him to plead that in case the department inquiry is not stayed, it would prejudice his defence in the criminal trial. After all, the cat is already out of the bag. Secondly, the Inquiry Officer has already given his finding and submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has already been issued the second show cause notice along with inquiry report. Therefore, what remains of the departmental proceeding is for the disciplinary authority to apply its mind and to pass the necessary order in accordance with law. Obviously at this stage, the petitioner cannot take a 5 new plea in his defence. He is already bound by the defence plea taken by him before the Inquiry Officer. Thus, there is no question of his criminal trial being adversely affected by disclosing his defence during the departmental inquiry. The ratio as laid done in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that its judgment should not be treated as provisions of law. The ratio of a judgment has to be treated in the context of the facts and circumstances of the given case. Therefore, the ratio as laid done in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) cannot be applied carte blanche. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-