Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, challenge is made to the order of dismissal dated 31.12.1990 so as the order passed on departmental appeal dated 31.12.1991.

2. Petitioner was served with a charge sheet containing two allegations. First allegation was regarding absence and second that he tried to snatch gold chain of witness Ramadevi who was sleeping in 'Musaafir Khana' at the railway station. After charge sheet and enquiry, order of punishment was passed. Petitioner preferred departmental appeal however it was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that basis of the order of punishment so as the order passed in departmental appeal was pendency of criminal case against the petitioner. The criminal case has now been decided where petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt vide order dated 26.9.2011. In view of the above, very basis to pass order of dismissal no more survives. Petitioner made an application for reinstatement however no cognizance has been given. In view of above, a direction may be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner after recalling order of dismissal and order passed in appeal. Reference of the judgment of this court in the case of “Bahadur Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, reported as 2008(2) WLC (Raj) 327 = 2008(2) RLW 998 and “Chander Kant Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, reported as 2010(4) WLC (Raj) 741 has been given.

4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the record.

5. The argument of learned counsel is that enquiry so as order of dismissal is based on pendency of criminal case in reference to the allegations of attempt to snatch gold chain of Ramadevi while she was sleeping at the railway station. The perusal of the impugned order does not show that it is based on criminal case. Accordingly, first ground of learned counsel for petitioner to show that order of punishment is based on pendency of the criminal case is not made out.

6. It may be that order of punishment was passed while criminal case was pending but then there exist no bar to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings while criminal case is pending. The only exception is when it involves complicated questions of fact and law in a crime of grave nature. It is not a case of aforesaid nature and, otherwise, petitioner never protested against the disciplinary enquiry. Now, after lapse of more than 22 years, the issue aforesaid cannot be raised.

7. Reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Bahadur Ram (supra) is given to show that acquittal in the criminal case should result in quashing of the order of punishment based on departmental enquiry.

8. I have considered the judgments referred to above. The aforesaid judgments are in reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of case of “GM Tank vs. State of Gujarat & ors” reported as (2006) 5 SCC 446 and “Captain M Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.” reported as (1999) 3 SCC 679. If para 22 of the judgment in the case of Captain M Paul Anthony (supra) is looked into, it permits departmental proceedings while criminal case is pending. Paragraph 22 of the judgment is quoted as under -

(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.

(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the large in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.

(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected agains

Click Here to Read the rest of this document