The Union Of India Thr. Secretary, ... vs Harshvardhan S/O Ratnakar Nanoti
2021 Latest Caselaw 17389 Bom

                                                                                      1
                                                                         wp5266.2021.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


                          WRIT PETITION NO.5266/2021

                          The Union of India and others
                                     ..Vs..
                        Harshvardhan S/o Ratnakar Nanoti

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                         Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
                 Ms Sushma, Advocate for the petitioners.



                         CORAM :-         SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                          ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED :- 14.12.2021.

Heard Ms Sushma, learned counsel for the petitioners. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is bad in law as it does not consider the ratio of many of the Supreme Court judgments including the State of Rajasthan V/s Shri B.K. Meena & others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 417 and The Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Anr. V/s. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3456/2019 decided on 8.4.2019.

2. She submits that the staying of disciplinary criminal proceedings pending criminal proceedings as held by the Apex Court is never a matter of course and if the departmental proceedings are stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration, if the criminal case gets unduly delayed. She further submits that the

wp5266.2021.odt

approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and those in the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. She further submits while in the latter case, the question that arises for consideration is whether or not misconduct of the employee when proved would warrant his removal from service or award of lesser punishment and in the former case, the consideration for proving of guilt of the employee for the offences with which he is tried, is the standard of proof which is of beyond reasonable doubt and, such being the objects of criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal should not have stayed the departmental proceedings. It is further submitted that all these considerations are absent in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

3. Issue notice for final disposal at admission stage to the respondents.

4. Stand over to 6th January, 2021.

                                                      JUDGE                                     JUDGE




                                Tambaskar.




Signed By:NILESH VILASRAO
TAMBASKAR
Private Secretary

Signing Date:15.12.2021 19:42