C.W.P No. 10614 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10614 of 2008 Date of decision : February 03, 2009 Suresh Kumar, ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition was filed on 6.6.2008 challenging the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that a criminal trial on the same charges was pending and if the petitioner had led his defence it would disclose in the criminal trial also. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Managing Director State Bank of Hyderabad and Another vs P.Kata Rao, 2008(3) SCT 153, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- C.W.P No. 10614 of 2008 ::2:: “18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. There cannot, furthermore, be any doubt or dispute that only because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated or to continue therewith. 19. We are not unmindful or different principles laid down by this court from time to time. The approach that the court's jurisdiction is unlimited although had not found favour with some Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality, however, had not been deviated from. 20. The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Cap. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another, 1999 (2) SCT 660, however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependent on C.W.P No. 10614 of 2008 ::3:: the fact situation obtaining in each case.” I find that the principles laid down in the above said case are that the applicability of the doctrine that a delinquent shall not be proceeded in departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously has to be weighed against the facts situation obtaining in each case. As per the inquiry report, produced before me, the first defence witness appeared on 5.5.2008. Thus, it is clear that before filing this writ petition, the petitioner had already started proceedings of his defence. Apart from that, it is to be noticed that this Court while issuing notice of motion did not stay further proceedings of the inquiry but only stayed passing of the final order. Resultantly, the defence of the petitioner stands willy-nilly disclosed. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the inquiry proceedings pending. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'