Bombay High Court
Surajit Dutta vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 15 February, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
Vidya signed by
Vidya S. Amin
S. Date:
2021.02.17
Amin +0530
11:30:13
1 12.WP(St.)2067_2021
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 2067 OF 2021
K. Vijaya Rama Rao ... Petitioner
vs.
Union of India, through Secretary & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO. 2148 OF 2021
Surajit Dutta ... Petitioner
vs.
Union of India, through Secretary & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rajeev R. Kumar for the petitioners.
Mr. R.R. Shetty with Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi for respondent no. 1.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w. Mr. M.M. Pable, AGP for the State.
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2021
P.C. :
1. The petitioners are facing disciplinary proceedings as well as
criminal prosecution arising from the same set of facts and circumstances.
They had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,
Mumbai with Original Application No. 286 of 2020 and Original Application
No. 294 of 2020 seeking stay of the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against them. The Tribunal by its orders dated October 23, 2020 and
November 2, 2020 invited affidavits from the parties and fixed the Original
Applications for final arguments. In the process, the prayer for interim relief
2 12.WP(St.)2067_2021
was declined. The orders dated October 23, 2020 and November 2, 2020 are
the subject matter of challenge in these Writ Petitions.
2. We are informed that the Tribunal has since heard the parties finally
on December 4, 2020 and judgments on Original Application No. 286 of 2020
and Original Application No. 294 of 2020 are reserved.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners complains that despite the
judgment being reserved, the Enquiry Officer has been proceeding with the
domestic enquiry on day to day basis and that they would be compelled to
disclose their defence even prior to the Original Applications being finally
decided. He has, accordingly, prayed for stay of the proceedings before the
Enquiry Officer.
4. Learned advocate for the respondents submits that the enquiry has
been long pending and no case for interference has been set up.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and bearing in
mind the fact that the Tribunal has finally heard the Original Applications
and reserved the same for judgment, we are of the opinion that it would be
just and proper to request the Tribunal to decide the Original Applications as
early as possible and preferably within a month from date, subject to its
3 12.WP(St.)2067_2021
convenience. We order accordingly. It would also be proper for the Enquiry
Officer to await the decision of the Tribunal, particularly having regard to the
fact that the memoranda of charge-sheet were issued almost a decade back.
Since sufficient time has lapsed without the enquiry being brought to a
logical conclusion, the respondents would not suffer irreparable loss and
prejudice if they were directed to await the conclusion of the proceedings
initiated by the petitioners before the Tribunal; on the contrary, if the
petitioners ultimately succeed before the Tribunal but in the meanwhile they
are compelled to disclose their defence, they would suffer irreparable loss
and prejudice.
5. On the above terms, these writ petitions stand disposed of without
orders for costs. Needless to observe, we have expressed no opinion on the
merits of the rival claims and all points are left open.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
