C.W.P. No.10479 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.10479 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.07.2011 Mahabir Parshad Garg ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. His prayer is for issuance of direction to the respondents not to proceed in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner till the criminal proceedings initiated vide FIR No.RCCHG-2007-A0012 dated 05.06.2007 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are finalized. It is contended that the petitioner was working as a Quality Inspector in the Office of Food Corporation of India, Ellnabad District, Sirsa. On a complaint dated 05.06.2007, FIR No.RCCHG-2007-A0012 dated 05.06.2007 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him. The matter was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. After investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation has referred a case to the Court and the C.B.I Court has charge sheeted the petitioner under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(1) of the C.W.P. No.10479 of 2011 2 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the pendency of case in the CBI, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the General Manager on 05.01.2011. The said notice has been issued under Section 58 of the Food Corporation of India Employees Act, 1971 for departmental enquiry. It is contended that framing of the charge and initiating the departmental proceedings against the petitioner are fatal to the criminal case pending against the petitioner in CBI Court at Ambala and as such, the departmental proceedings pending before respondent No.4 may be kept in abeyance in view of the settled proposition of law till the matter is finalized by the CBI Court. The petitioner, in his reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure P-4 has requested for keeping the proceedings in abeyance. No decision has been taken on the request of the petitioner for postponement of the departmental enquiry till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 and Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant and others (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 182, as well as, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case titled as Union of India v. Sarvesh Kaushal reported as 2005(2) ILR (Punjab) 562. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the request of the petitioner for postponement of departmental proceedings, by passing a speaking order. The same shall be decided within one month from the receipt of a copy of this order. Disposed of. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.07.2011 JUDGE gurpreet