TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant in therespondent-Federation and was during the relevant period,posted as in-charge Branch Manager of its Gulbarga Branch. Interms of a charge-sheet Annexure-F to the writ petition, he wasaccused of having misappropriated an amount of Rs. 52,29,000and odd. A departmental enquiry into the charge has beeninitiated and entrusted to the 3rd respondent.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitionfor a writ of certiorari quashing the charge-sheet as also theorder of suspension, Annexure-K to the writ petition primarily onthe ground that since the Federation has reported the matter tothe Police in terms of the First Information Report, Annexure-G,to the writ petition; holding of the enquiry in question willgreatly prejudice him in his defence to the criminal case thatmay in due course be filed against him.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner whoargued on the authority of a Judgment of the Supreme Court inkusheshwar Dubey v M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others,that the conduct of a domestic enquiry against the petitionerpending investigation of a criminal case was legallyimpermissible. This judgment however does not support thesubmission made by the learned Counsel. The same takes theview that there is no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings beingtaken against an employee though there may be cases where itmay be appropriate to defer the disciplinary proceedingsawaiting disposal of the criminal case. The Court has held that itis neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and faststrait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of generalaplication without regard to the pecularities of an individualoftuation. The Court did not lay down any general guidelinesand even declined to resolve the cleavage in the judicial opinionprevalent in this country as to whether the pendency of acriminal case against an employee would by itself be sufficient tostay or prevent the disciplinary proceedings till such time thecriminal case was finally decided. The Court noted with approvalthe view taken by it in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. vkushal Bhan and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v The Workmen, thatit is only in cases where the charge against the employees is of agrave nature and involved complex questions of law and factthat the need to stay the disciplinary proceedings may arise. Italso noticed its earlier judgment in Jang Bahadur Singh v Baijnath Tiwari , where the legal position was summed up in thefollowing words:"the issue in the disciplinary proceedings is whether theemployee is guilty of the charges on which it is proposed totake action against him. The same issue may arise fordecision in a civil or criminal proceeding pending in acourt. But the pendency of the Court proceedings does notbar the taking of disciplinary action. The power of takingsuch action is vested in the Disciplinary Authority. Thecivil or Criminal Court has no such power. The initiationand continuation of disciplinary proceedings in good faithis not calculated to obstruct or interfere with the course ofjustice in the pending Court proceedings. The employee isfree to move the Court for an order restraining thecontinuance of the disciplinary proceedings. If he obtains astay order, a wilful violation of the order would of courseamount to Contempt of Court. In the absence of a stayorder the Disciplinary Authority is free to exercise its lawful powers". To the same effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of thiscourt in Rama P. C. No. 486 v Superintendent of Police, Kolarand Another, a Division Bench Judgment of the High Court ofjammu and Kashmir in Ali Mohd. and Others v Chairman, T. A. and C. , Udhampur, a Division Bench Judgment of the High Courtof Gauhati in Moulindra Singh v Deputy Commissioner andothers, and a judgment of the High Court of Madras in Shaikkasim v The Superintendent of Post Offices, Chinglepat Divisionand Another.

( 4 ) IN Moulindra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document