IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.7109 of 2007 Date of decision: 19.8.2008 Rajni Dhawan -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Kashmira Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. SK Monga, Sr. DAG,Haryana for the State. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks a direction for staying of departmental proceedings till decision of criminal case. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service with the Urban Cooperative Bank in the year 1984. A charge sheet dated 5.1.2002 was served on him and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the allegation of embezzlement. On 21.4.2004, FIR was lodged against the petitioner. Thereafter, a new Enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner sought stoppage of departmental CWP No.7109 of 2007 proceedings till disposal of criminal proceedings but the prayer having not been accepted, this petition has been filed. In the reply filed, stand taken is that there was no bar to departmental proceedings continuing simultaneously with the criminal proceedings. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that since in criminal case, cancellation report has already been filed vide Annexure P.19 dated 16.9.2005, prayer of the petitioner that departmental proceedings be deferred, is without any substance. In any case, there was no legal bar to departmental proceedings being continued. 5. We find merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents. Though, there cannot be any rigid principle that there can never be stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal trial, there is no bar to proceed simultaneously with the departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. R. B. Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 4144. Same view was taken in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry, AIR 2005 SC 1406. In the present case, it has also been pointed out that cancellation report has been filed. 2 CWP No.7109 of 2007 6. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere in this petition. 7. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 19, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3