:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2026 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2026 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2026 OF 2008 Rajesh Dhankar ..Petitioner V/s Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay and Another ..Respondents Mr.V.N. Shingnapurkar a/w Chirag Shah for the petitioner Mr.Pankaj Patel a/w A.I. Telegaonkar i/b Bhaisbhankar Kanga and Girdharilal for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. The petitioner is facing a Criminal trial in connection with the illegal gratification and the case is pending being Special Case No.76 of 2005, before the Special Court, Mumbai. The Department thereafter initiated the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner in connection with alleged misconduct in July, 2006. By filing this petition, the petitioner prayed that the respondent-institute may be restrained from holding the Departmental Enquiry Simultaneously with the Criminal Case against the petitioner. It is also prayed that till the Criminal Trial is over the Departmental Enquiry should not be :2: proceeded further. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the Departmental Enquiry the Disciplinary Authority is going to examine the Investigating Officer, who is also an important witness in the Criminal Trial and the Criminal Trial is yet to began. The learned Counsel further submitted that if the Investigating Officer’s evidence is taken first in the Departmental Enquiry it may prejudice his case in the Criminal Trial. 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that so far as Departmental Enquiry is concerned, the complainant has already been examined and the petitioner has already cross-examined the said witness and now only one witness is required to be examined. It is further submitted that the enquiry is pending since 2006 and since the scope of both the proceedings are different it is not a case wherein the defence of the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever evidence recorded in Departmental Enquiry shall not be relied upon in any manner in the Criminal Trial. It is submitted that the evidence given by the :3: Investigating Officer in the Departmental Enquiry shall not be relied at all in the Criminal Trial. Considering the fact that the Departmental enquiry is pending since 2006 and when the original complainant has already been examined and the petitioner has also cross-examined the said witness it will not be just and proper to stay further proceeding of Departmental Enquiry at this stage, as the petitioner has not approached this Court at the earliest. However the respondents shall not rely on the evidence of I.O. given in the Departmental Enquiry in the Criminal Trial, in any manner. 3. It is pointed out by the respondent that the cross-examination of the complainant has already been over in Criminal Trial and Chief examination is over in Disciplinary proceedings. It is at the stage of cross-examination of the said witness by the petitioner, that this petition is filed. 4. In view of what is stated above we do not find any substance in this petition. However it will be open to the petitioner to apply for adjournment before the Inquiry Officer on the ground that the :4: Investigating Officer is going to be examined in the Criminal Trial in a short period. However it is for the Inquiry Officer to consider whether the enquiry should be adjourned or not and we have not expressed any opinion on this point in any manner. So far as the present petition is concerned, as already observed we do not find any substance, the petition is dismissed. (P.B. (P.B. (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) MAJMUDAR, J.) MAJMUDAR, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)