The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to stay departmental proceedings pending a criminal trial depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and the distinction between the purpose of departmental enquiry and criminal prosecution is crucial in determining the applicability of the concept of prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

DIPAK MISRA, J.

Soundness of orders dated 5-11-2001 and 3-12-2001 passed by the M. P. Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 3695/2001 and in M. A. No. 472/2001 respectively is the subject-matter of assail in this Writ petition.

2. The facts which have been depicted in the writ petition are that the two petitioners, namely, Vijay Kumar Ekka and Horliyus Tirki, are working as Constables in the Armed Police and are posted at Police Line, Jabalpur. The respondent No. 2, the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, initiated a departmental enquiry against the petitioners by issue of a memorandum No. Endt. No. SP/JBL/Steno/2/D.E./45, dated 5-12-2000 contained in Annexure P/1. In the meantime, a criminal case on the basis of an FIR was lodged by the owner of the hotel, Rajesh Scindia at the police Station, Mandla. The criminal law was set in motion and eventually a crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC'). When the departmental proceeding as well as the criminal case was in progress the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid original application for quashment of the departmental enquiry on many a ground. It was putforth before the Tribunal that if the departmental proceeding was allowed to continue, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioners and it would not be possible for him to urge certain grounds in further point of time.

3. The Tribunal adverted to the prayer portion of the application, noted the facts in brief and came to hold that there is no impediment for conducting a departmental enquiry for committing misconduct by a government employee inasmuch as the criminal case stands in a different and separate compartment. Being of this view the Tribunal negatived the prayer sought for by the petitioners which entailed in dismissal of the original application. An application for review was filed which met with similar fate.

4. Assailing the aforesaid orders it is urged by Mr. K. L. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners that though the petitioners had prayed for quashment of the departmental proceeding before the Tribunal, but in essence the prayer was for stay of the departmental proceeding inasmuch as if the departmental proceeding is allowed to continue, immense prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The learned counsel has highlighted that the witnesses in both cases may be common and that would adversely affect the interest of the petitioners.

5. Mr. Sanjay Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that order passed by the Tribunal is absolutely justified and supportable and there is no bar for continuance of the departmental enquiry and the criminal case simultaneously unless certain conditions precedent are satisfied but in the present case, unfortunately, the same are absolutely absent as the charges framed against the petitioners in the departmental proceeding are quite distinct and separate than that for which the criminal case has been instituted.

6. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the chargesheet which has been brought on record as Annexure P/2. On a scrutiny of the same, it transpires that the petitioners were chargesheeted on the ground that on 20th October, while they were bringing the undertrial prisoners, namely, Rakesh and Kallu alias Narendra they entered into a hotel indulged in drinking by which act, they violated Regulation 64 of the M. P. Police Regulations. Apart from this there is no other charge which is fairly conceded to by the learned Government Advocate for the State. The criminal case as has been indicated hereinbefore exposits that it relates to various offences and it has been lodged by the owner of the hotel. On a perusal of the FIR which has been brought on record as Annexure P/3, it is crystal clear that accused persons got drunk, abused the hotel owner, created