ORDER

Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A): In this MA, the applicant has prayed for staying the departmental enquiry and has also prayed for directing the respondents to provide him an opportunity to inspect the original documents so that he could defend himself properly in this enquiry.

2. The respondents have filed reply to the MA stating that the enquiry should not be stayed midway for these reasons.

It is also stated that considering the request of the applicant for allowing inspection of original documents, the Principal (2) CCIT Rajasthan, Jaipur had already requested to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jaipur to provide necessary assistance for getting the documents, lying in the custody of the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jaipur, to be inspected by the applicant. The respondents have already given a detailed reply to the OA and the interim relief prayed in this MA should not be granted as it would amount to granting the final relief.

3. The matter was heard through video conferencing on 8/2/2022. Both the counsels argued in favour of their respective positions stated in the MA/reply to the MA.

Learned counsel for the respondents also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and Others (2009) 17 SCC 555 in support of his arguments.

4. After hearing the arguments, it is clear that granting what the applicant is praying would amount to our interference at an intermediate stage of an enquiry.

Learned counsel for the respondents made it clear that the certified copies of those documents (sought to be inspected by the applicant) have already been provided to the applicant. This is sufficient for him to defend himself. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that he must verify (3) these copies with the original documents to see whether these copies are correct. We agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the intervention at this stage would only serve to prolong the enquiry. We do not think any irreparable damage will be caused if the applicant’s request is not granted. Also, the balance of convenience lies in favour of continuation of the enquiry prolonging which is not in the interest of either party. We also do not think that we need to issue any direction to provide originals of documents which are lying in the custody of an appropriate court. The respondents have already requested the CBI to allow an opportunity to the applicant to inspect the documents lying before a competent court. The applicant is free to do so, with appropriate permission from the court, if he suspects the correctness of the certified copies provided to him. The MA for interim relief, which prima-facie appears to be a dilatory tactic, to delay the conduct and conclusion of an inquiry, is therefore not allowed.

5. List the OA for hearing on 24.03.2022. (Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /kdr/