ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in initiating a disciplinary proceedings and also ordering for conducting of a departmental inquiry the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present writ petition is that the petitioner is working under the respondents as a Constable (Trade). On 16.03.2020 an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 506 & 509 (B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, the matter has been put to trial and the charge-sheet also has been filed before the concerned trial Court. Now the Department has vide charge-sheet dated 05.03.2021 (Annexure P/3)) has been issued.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the contents of the charge-sheet and on perusal of the allegations leveled in the F.I.R., the contents are same. He further drew the attention of this Court to the list of witnesses cited in the criminal case as also in the departmental enquiry and submitted that the main witnesses before the two proceedings also are the same. According to the petitioner, since in the departmental enquiry the witnesses to be examined in the criminal case are same and in case if their statements are recorded in the departmental enquiry ahead of the evidence being recorded in the criminal case, the very defense of the petitioner before the Criminal Court would get disclosed and it may have an adverse baring to the criminal case and which can also be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. He thus prayed for stay of the departmental enquiry pending the criminal case. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a couple of orders passed by this Court in WPS No. 8018/2018 decided on 05.12.2018 and also in WPS No. 5252/2020 decided on 14.12.2020.

4. The State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submitted that a plain reading of the nature of allegations itself would show that the charges leveled against the petitioner are quite serious and squarely falls within the ambit of a misconduct under the service regulations and therefore irrespective of the pendency of the criminal case the disciplinary proceedings also simultaneously go on. According to the State counsel, there is no embargo as such totally prohibiting the two proceedings to go on simultaneously and it would all depend upon the facts of each case and as such there cannot be a straight jacket formula for staying the entire disciplinary proceedings. The counsel for the State relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao” 2012(1) SCC 442 to support her contention.

5. As regards, the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is by now well settled proposition of law that there is no legal bar for continuation of the two proceedings, one under the departmental enquiry and other under the criminal trial. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated the fact that even though there is no legal bar but in the event of the question of facts and the nature of evidences to be adduced in the two proceedings are the same. To avoid unnecessarily further complications, the departmental enquiry should be deferred till the conclusion of the criminal case.

6. In the instant case, if we look into the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the criminal case and the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, it would clearly reflect that the allegations are the same that are leveled in the criminal case as well. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, particularly the F.I.R. and the list of witnesses in support of the prosecution before the trial Court and the list of witnesses enclosed along with the departmental charge-sheet for the departmental enquiry would show that most of witnesses are common in the two proceedings.

7. A