1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1378/2011 [Mukesh Babulal Shrivastav .vrs. The Union of India and another] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 06, 2011. Heard Shri M.M. Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.P. Lambat, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The petitioner, who is Constable in Railway Protection Force, has approached this Court challenging the charge sheet dated 20.1.2011 issued by respondent no.2 containing that criminal prosecution for very same incidence is still pending before the competent forum. It is urged that very same material i.e. evidence and documents are to be used in the said departmental inquiry and hence if the petitioner is forced to face such departmental inquiry, it will result in disclosure of his defence and cause serious prejudice in criminal prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2 the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony .vrs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, particularly paragraph 20. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner, further contended that in somewhat similar situation Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2641/2009 dated 25.1.2010 (Umakant Chandrashekhar Pande .vrs. The Union of India and one) stayed the departmental inquiry for a period of 1½ years and gave employer liberty to resume it if criminal prosecution was not decided within the said period. He points out that in this matter for episode in March 2004 charge sheet has been issued on 20.1.2011. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for respondent no.2, has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others .vrs. T. Srinivas, reported in 2004 III CLR 4, particularly paragraph nos.9, 10 and 11. He also invites attention to unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.964/2011 dated 29.3.2011 (Rajesh Deorao Kurve .vrs. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and one). According to him, nothing happened in criminal prosecution for over seven years and a person like the petitioner against whom serious 3 charges are levelled is occupying a responsible post. He, therefore, states that as the charge sheet as issued is legal and valid, departmental inquiry cannot be stayed. The post occupied by the petitioner is, no doubt, the post of confidence. The alleged incident has taken place on 12/13th March, 2004 and in it theft of railway property has been alleged. The collusion between some private persons and the petitioner has been found in the preliminary investigation then conducted. The criminal prosecution is pending since 2004. The circumstances in which it could not be taken up till date are not pointed out. The petitioner has also not disclosed anything about his past service record. The only insistence is about alleged prejudice caused due to disclosure of defence in departmental inquiry and, therefore, we do not find any substance in the matter. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony .vrs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, in paragraph 22 (v) (supra) has found that if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental inquiry can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude it at an early date. The Hon’ble Apex Court has found that if the employee is found not guilty his honour 4 may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. This view has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.964/2011 decided on 29.3.2011. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others .vrs. T. Srinivas particularly in paragraph nos.11 and 12, has also held that it is not necessary to stay departmental inquiries in all matters. The Division Bench order dated 25.1.2010 in W.P. No.2641/2009 is passed by consent and hence is not relevant here. In this situation, considering the post of confidence occupied by the petitioner and the time already spent, we find it appropriate to have expeditious disposal of departmental inquiry. Hence, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that the petition in paragraph 2 contains a statement about past unblemished service record of the petitioner. However, for reasons already recorded above, we dismiss the petition. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande