This single-judge High Court order dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order refusing to stay departmental proceedings against a government employee. The court held that the long pendency of the criminal trial due to the petitioner's prior quashment petition precluded any stay.
Null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO.14812 OF 2019 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
SUDATTA RAHUL S/O. NETRAPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ND 7 CENTRAL TAX DIVISION, NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, S.P. COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD, BANGALORE, RESIDING AT NO.34/1, 11TH CROSS, PAPANNA BLOCK, RBI COLONY, GANGA NAGAR NORTH, BANGALORE – 560 024.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH KUMAR B.S., ADV.)
AND:
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.V. ARAVIND, ADV., FOR R-1 & 2; NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29-11-2019)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28-11-2018 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00626/2017 AS AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE, AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 28-11-2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No.170/00626/2017, by which the Tribunal has declined to stay the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner.
4
issued in the year 2017 and a criminal case was registered against him in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) praying for quashment of F.I.R., charge-sheet as well as the proceedings in respect of Crime No.389 of 2016, meaning thereby, F.I.R. was registered in the year 2016, and the petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was registered as Application No.5926 of 2017. The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the same. In the criminal case, because of the petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., a delay has taken place and charge-sheet has been filed, meaning thereby, the delay can be attributed to the petitioner only in the completion of criminal trial as he has preferred petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Since 2017, the Departmental Enquiry has also not progressed because of the original application preferred by the present applicant, meaning thereby, all attempts have been made by the applicant himself/petitioner for delaying
5
with the criminal trial as well as the departmental enquiry
proceedings.
“12. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we accede to the contention of the appellants that the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent for an indefinite period; and in larger public interest, the order as passed in Stanzen’s case be followed even in the fact situation of the present case, to balance the equities.”
Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the charge-sheet has been issued in the year 2017 and we are in the year 2021, there is no justification in staying the Departmental Enquiry
6
keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in respect of the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ
petition is dismissed .
SD/JUDGE
SD/JUDGE
kvk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is justification for staying departmental enquiry pending criminal case after significant delay.
Whether the petitioner's own petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. caused delay in departmental proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam NagExplained¶34
State Bank of India and Others v. Neelam Nag
(2016) 9 SCC 491Explained¶34
Stanzen's caseDistinguished¶34
Sudatta Rahul S/o. Netrapal Singh
Union of India
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore IV
Shri Utpat Hrishikesh Kiran
Satish Chandra Sharma
V. Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
