Bombay High Court
K.Vijaya Rama Rao vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 11 March, 2021
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
1.WPSTNo.45342021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.4534 OF 2021
K.Vijaya Rama Rao ... Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
.....
Mr.Rajeev N. Kumar a/w. Ms.Gitanjali Ahire, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr.R.R.Shetty a/w. Mr.Niranjan Shimpi, Advocate for the
Respondent.
.....
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE :- MARCH 4, 2021
PC :
1 The petitioner is standing trial in CBI Special Case No.20
of 2008 under Sections 7, 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is also facing
disciplinary proceedings on two charges, ~ the origin of the
first charge relates to the same set of facts and circumstances
which has given rise to the criminal proceedings. The
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated
in 2011, but some time thereafter the request of the
petitioner was accepted and the Disciplinary Authority kept
such proceedings in abeyance owing to pendency of the
criminal proceedings. The request of the petitioner was based
on an apprehension that participation in the domestic enquiry
Gaikwad RD 1/4
1.WPSTNo.45342021
would lead to disclosure of his defence in the criminal
proceedings, thereby prejudicing him irretrievably. However,
subsequently, based on office memoranda issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India
and a circular letter of the Chief Vigilance Commission, the
order keeping the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance was
recalled and the petitioner was advised to participate in the
domestic enquiry. It is at this stage that the petitioner
challenged the order revoking the order keeping the
disciplinary proceedings in abeyance before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A.No.286 of
2020. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and order dated
16th February 2021 having dismissed the original application,
the same has been subjected to challenge in this writ petition.
2 While hearing the writ petition on an earlier occasion, we
requested Mr.Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents to place before us information of how the trial is
progressing and particulars of the dates fixed by the Special
Court in seisin of the criminal trial right from the date the
charge was framed. Such particulars have been produced. It
is revealed that since 24th August 2016, evidence has been
heard in part. We are informed that examination of the
Prosecution Witness No.1 has been closed and his cross-
examination is in progress, with 5th April 2021 being fixed as
the next date. We are also informed that out of the fifteen
other witnesses, proposed to be examined by the prosecution,
the Prosecution Witness No.2 is the complainant.
Gaikwad RD 2/4
1.WPSTNo.45342021
3 Having regard to the fact that the disciplinary
proceedings have made little progress since 2011 and that the
complainant, whose complaint triggered both the criminal trial
as well as the disciplinary proceedings, is on the verge of
being examined, we propose to pass the following interim
order in the interest of justice :
Order
1) The Special Court is requested to assign top priority
to the case at hand and ensure completion of the
cross-examination of the P.W.No.1 at the earliest,
subject to its convenience;
2) Examination of the P.W.No.2, being the complainant,
shall commence within a week after cross-
examination of the P.W.No.1 is closed and as far as
possible, evidence of the P.W.No.2 shall be recorded
within the least possible time so that, at any rate, his
examination and cross-examination are complete
within three months from such commencement;
3) The petitioner shall not pray for a single adjournment
while cross-examining the P.W.No.2; and
4) Since the disciplinary proceedings have not been
completed for over a decade and the petitioner
apprehends that his defence is likely to be disclosed,
if he is compelled to participate in the disciplinary
Gaikwad RD 3/4
1.WPSTNo.45342021
proceedings at this stage, we need to balance the
competing rights having regard to the unending
criminal trial and upon such balancing are of the
considered opinion that once the evidence of the
P.W.No.2 is closed, the likelihood of the petitioner's
defence being disclosed in the disciplinary
proceedings may no longer survive; hence, we
restrain the respondents from proceeding with the
disciplinary proceedings till 30th June 2021 or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
4 This writ petition shall be listed before the appropriate
Bench on 17th June 2021 for reporting developments.
Depending upon what is reported, the question of permitting
the respondents to resume the disciplinary proceedings and
taking the same to its logical conclusion shall be considered.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by Raju
D. Gaikwad
Raju D. Date:
Gaikwad 2021.03.11
19:52:29
+0530
Gaikwad RD 4/4
