1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexures 4 and 10. Vide order as contained in Annexure 4 the petitioner has been dismissed from service on conclusion of a departmental proceeding and the order of dismissal has been affirmed vide order as contained in Annexure 10 by the appellate authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the departmental proceeding sufficient opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner even though he had filed a petition before the enquiry officer to stay the proceeding as he was also proceeded against for the same self charge in a criminal case and this fact is borne out from the appellate order as contained in Annexure 10. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment as contained in Annexure 5.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and charges were served upon him and thereafter the petitioner appeared in the departmental proceeding and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were followed.

5. I have perused the order of dismissal as contained in Annexure 4 and also the judgment of the Criminal court as contained in Annexure 5. It appears that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and he was also put on trial for the same self charges. For the criminal charge, as it appears, petitioner has been acquitted whereas in the departmental proceeding he has been dismissed from services. From the appellate order as contained in Annexure 10, it appears that the petitioner, had filed a petition before the enquiry officer to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case. It further appears that the petition filed by the petitioner was not considered and his appeal was dismissed only on the ground that he filed to adduce evidence in his defence. Since the petitioner was proceeded against both departmentally and in a criminal proceeding and an application was filed by the petitioner to stay the departmental proceeding till conclusion of the criminal case, normally the departmental proceeding could have been stayed as the petitioner was proceeded against for the same self charges. It is not in dispute that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not given to the petitioner nor the second show cause notice was given for the proposed punishment which would be manifest from the appellate order itself.

6. It is almost settled that in case a delinquent employee is proceeded against departmentally and also is put on trial for the same self charges, the departmental proceeding should be stayed on the request made by the delinquent employee. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and anr. reported in 1999 (3) S.C.C. Page-679.

7. In the instant case, it appears that even prayer of the petitioner to stay the departmental proceeding was not considered and the departmental proceeding culminated into passing of the order of dismissal of the petitioner from services whereas the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case.

8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, therefore, it must be held that principles of natural justice were not observed while concluding departmental proceeding and the authorities exceeded in their jurisdiction.

9. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned Annexures 4 and 10 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to re-consider the matter taking into consideration the fact that for the same self charges the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case.