1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2009 Mrs.Kalpana Kutur ..Petitioner V/s. AIR INDIA & ors ..Respondents Mr.Rizvan Merchant with Ms.Manorama Mohanty & Mr.Swapnil i/b.S.K.Srivastav & Co., Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr.S.K.Talsania, Senior Advocate i/b.M.V.Kini & Co., Advocate, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : J. N. PATEL & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner for quashing a notice dated 12th August, 2009 of Departmental Enquiry issued by Respondent No.3. The Petitioner is serving in the Security Department of the Respondent No.1 2  Air India. It is alleged that few passengers of foreign origin were carrying excess baggage and the Petitioner went to the person, who was screening the said baggage to allow the passengers of foreign origin to carry excess baggage. After the screening of the baggage, it was found that it contained some narcotic drug. Since narcotic drugs were found in the said baggage and it was the Petitioner who had requested the person who was screening the said baggage to allow the passengers to carry the excess baggage, it was treated as misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. As a result of this, Respondent No.1 initiated Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is also being prosecuted under the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. A criminal trial is in progress. 3. The Petitioner contends that since criminal trial is about to come to an end, the 3 present Departmental Enquiry initiated against her be stayed until the decision of that criminal trial and, therefore, notice calling upon the Petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer be quashed. The learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits before us that the criminal trial has almost come to an end inasmuch as Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded. It is, therefore, obvious that the Petitioner has disclosed her defence which was available in the said criminal trial and in any case, there is no question of prejudice being caused to her in the said Departmental Enquiry. Further, it may be observed that the Disciplinary Authority is not precluded from proceeding with the Departmental Enquiry initiated against the Petitioner. At the most, the Petitioner would be entitled to place before the Enquiry Officer, the findings that may be recorded in the criminal trial which the enquiry may 4 consider while submitting the Report of the Departmental Enquiry. Since no prejudice is likely to be caused to the Petitioner, we do not see any reason to interfere. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (J. N. PATEL, J.) (C. L. PANGARKAR, J.)