1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5290 OF 2009 (Director General and others vs. Shri Prakash s/o Narayan Dharmadhikari and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M.REIS, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2009 Heard Shri Pillai, learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petition is directed against the order dated 21.7.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby original application of the respondent came to be allowed. Shri Pillai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that respondent is prosecuted for the same charges on which departmental enquiry is initiated against him. It is contended that there is no legal bar in proceeding against the respondent departmentally on the same charges, which are the 2 subject matter of criminal case and, therefore, finding recorded by the Tribunal is bad in law. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since Department is entitled to proceed against the delinquent in the departmental enquiry on the similar charges, the order of the Tribunal prohibiting petitioner Department is unsustainable in law and, therefore, impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is no doubt true that there is no legal bar for the Department to proceed against the delinquent departmentally even though the charges are similar to one involved in the criminal case. However, rule of prudence is to wait for a reasonable time till criminal case is over which, otherwise would prejudice the defence of the delinquent. The opinion expressed on the subject by the different Benches is based on the facts involved in the cases concerned and the issue would primarily depend upon seriousness of the charges, the prejudice likely to occur if the defence is to be opened, etc. and, therefore, taking into 3 consideration all these aspects as well as other attaining circumstances, it is for the Department to decide the issue before initiating departmental enquiry against the employee on the basis of charges, which are identical to one on the basis of which criminal prosecution is pending in the competent criminal Court. However, as we have already observed, the rule of prudence is to wait for a reasonable time and allow criminal Court to dispose of the criminal trial. At the same time, the Department will have to decide the issue taking into consideration the gravity of the charges. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj