The court ruled that a departmental inquiry can proceed even if there are common witnesses with a pending criminal trial, provided all witnesses have been examined.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

CM-9591-CWP-2024

This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC for revival of the main petition.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that the earlier counsel did not appear in the matter and the matter was disposed of in his absence. It is further submitted that the petitioner, after having knowledge of the said order passed, had engaged the present counsel and has prayed that the order dated 02.04.2024 be recalled and the main case be reheard.

3. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, the present application is allowed and the order dated 02.04.2024 is recalled and the main case is taken up on Board today for final disposal.

Main case

4. Present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents to continue with departmental inquiry by order No. 17128-34, dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure P-3) during the pendency of the criminal trial in case FIR No. 211 dated 13.06.2019 registered under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1) (w) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) S.C/S.T. Act, 1989 and Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000 at Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the primary ground for seeking stay of the departmental proceedings is that there are common witnesses in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal trial and the said common witnesses should not be examined in the departmental proceedings till the time they are examined in the criminal proceedings as in case the said witnesses are examined in the departmental proceedings, then, the same would cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.", reported as 1999(3) SCC 679.

6. Learned State Counsel, at the outset, has stated that all the witnesses in the departmental proceedings have already been examined and thus, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for the stay of departmental proceedings does not survive. It is further submitted that at any rate, the matter in issue is covered by the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions i.e. CWP-5111-2024 titled as Mustaq v. State of Haryana and others and other connected matters and that against the said order, an LPA No.1221 of 2024 was filed which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.05.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that all the witnesses in the departmental proceedings have been examined and the only plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that inquiry report has not been submitted. Apart from the fact that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Mustaq (Supra) which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1221-2024 decided on 23.05.2024, the sole plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner would not survive as it is not disputed that all the witnesses in the departmental proceedings have already been examined and thus, the question of deferring the evidence in the departmental proceedings does not arise.

8. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed.

9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.