SCA/15847/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15847 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus CHIMANLAL MADHAVJI BHUTT - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PD BHATE, AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. MR PR ABICHANDANI for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 15/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned AGP Shri Bhate for the petitioners and learned advocate Shri Abichandani for the respondent. SCA/15847/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The petitioners have challenged an order dated 19th July 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh in an application filed by the respondent herein in Regular Civil Appeal No.15/06. By the impugned order, the learned Judge though permitted the Government to conclude the departmental inquiry, prevented the competent authority from declaring the final order till the result of the criminal trial is over. Apparently, respondent herein is a Government employee facing departmental action. He is also prosecuted in the criminal court for his alleged misdeeds. His suit against conducting the inquiry was turned down. He therefore, preferred regular appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, above mentioned order came to be passed. 3. By no legal standard, the order can be upheld. Primarily, the concept of not continuing parallel proceedings in civil as well as criminal cases is based on the possibility of exposing the delinquent to the risk of disclosing his defence when the criminal trial is yet to be over. However, by series of decisions, particularly in the case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416, the Apex Court has laid down parameters for stay of departmental action during the pendency of trial. It is necessary for the delinquent to point out that not only the criminal case as well as departmental action are based on identical set of SCA/15847/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT facts, but complicated questions of law and facts would arise before he could request that the departmental inquiry be stayed. Ordinarily, courts refuse to stay departmental action since delay in such proceedings would result in prejudice to the employer as well as to the delinquent. 4. In the present case, the learned Judge permitted the Government to conclude the inquiry and pass final order thereon, but not to disclose the result. This would not even help the delinquent since the entire inquiry would be continued and whatever risk of disclosing his defence arises, would also not be obviated. Further, nowhere the learned Judge has discussed that the issues arising are complex questions of law and facts so as to permit interference in early conclusion of the departmental proceedings. 5. In the result, the impugned order is quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)