Delhi High Court
Dushyant Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 March, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3531/2025, CM APPLs. 16535/2025 & 16536/2025
DUSHYANT YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Khanna, Sr. PC
with Ms. Kautilya Birat, GP for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 26.03.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of
mandamus, directing the Railway Protection Force not to proceed with
the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, following a charge-sheet
issued under Section 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 read
with Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, till the
criminal proceedings, presently pending against the petitioner on the
charges which are identical to those forming subject matter of the
aforenoted chargesheet, come to an end.
2. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has,
however, restricted his prayer, during the course of arguments, to a
restraint against the respondents continuing with the disciplinary
proceedings till the completion of recording of evidence in the
criminal case.
3. The only issue before this Court is, therefore, whether the
petitioner is entitled to a direction, as sought, restraining the
respondents from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings, till
recording of evidence in the criminal case pending before the learned
Sessions Judge, following FIR 609/2024 dated 25 October 2024, is
complete.
4. It is necessary, therefore, for us to reproduce FIR 609/2024, the
chargesheet dated 15 January 2025 and the statement of imputation of
misconduct as alleged, as annexed to the chargesheet, thus:
"FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
(Under section 173 B.N.S.S)
1 District: NORTH (DELHI) Year: 2024 P.S : SARAI
ROHILLA
FIR NO: 0609 Date & Time of FIR:
25/10/2024
2 Act(s) Section(s)
3 Occurrence of offence
(a) Day: Interverning Day Date from: 4/12/2023 Date to:
5/12/2023
Time period: Time from: 16:00 Hrs Time To: 13:00 Hrs
(b) Information received at P.S Date:25/10/2024 Time: 14:56
Hrs
(c) General Diary Refrence Entry NO.:129A Date/Time:
25/10/2204; 16:27
4 Type of Information: Written
5 Place of Occurrence
(a) Direction and Distance from P.S: SOUTH-EAST 1 KM
(b) Address: HOTEL DELHI DELIGHT, 9834A AHATA
THAKUR DAS, SARAI ROHILLA RAILWAY STATION GATE
NO.1
(c) In case, outside the limit of the Police Station
Name of P. S District
6 Complainant/Informant
(a) Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(b) Date/Year of Birth: 2000 Nationality: INDIA
(c) Passport No. Date of issue: Place of Issue:
(d) Occupation: NOT KNOWN
(e) Address: YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
7 Details of Known /Suspect/ Unknown accused with full
particulars (attach separate sheet if necessary)
8 Reason for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant
: NO DELAY
9 Particulars of the properties stolen/involved (attach separate
sheet if necessary):
SI.NO property Type (descripton) Est. value
10 Total value of property stolen:
11 Inquest Report/U.D. Case No. if any:
12 FIR Contents (attach separate sheet, if required)
To, The Honorable Station House Officer, Sarai Rohilla Police
Station, New Delhi.
Subject: Request for Legal Action Respected Sir, I, the
complainant, *****1, ***** respectfully submit this complaint. My
contact number is *****. Sir, in the year 2020, I came into contact
with the accused, Dushyant, through Facebook. After some time,
we exchanged phone numbers and started communicating
regularly. Dushyant often called me from his mobile number
7300297298. Over time, our friendship developed into love, and
Dushyant proposed marriage to me, to which I agreed. However,
after nearly two years, I became suspicious and confronted
Dushyant about whether he was married. He admitted that he was
already married. Upon learning this, I stopped talking to him.
For about 1-2 months, I had no communication with Dushyant.
However, he started making his friends call me and persuade me to
talk to him. When I eventually spoke to Dushyant, he told me that
his wife was not living with him, they were having disputes, and
their divorce was imminent. In December 2023, I was preparing for
the Uttar Pradesh Police examination, which was scheduled for
February 2024. I was traveling from my hostel in Jaipur to my
home in ****. Dushyant requested me to stop by Delhi to celebrate
his birthday and assured me that he would book my ticket. I agreed
and came to Delhi for his birthday. On December 4, 2023, around
4:05 PM, I arrived at Sarai Rohilla Railway Station. Dushyant
picked me up and took me to Hotel Delhi Delight, located at 9834-
A, Ahata Thakur Dass, Sarai Rohilla Railway Station, Gate No.
01,Karol Bagh, New Delhi. When I asked him why none of his
friends were present, he said, "Since you are here, no one else is
needed." That evening, we celebrated his birthday at the hotel.
Before going to bed, he gave me a drink mixed with an
intoxicating substance, which made me unconscious. In this state,
Dushyant forcefully attempted to establish physical relations with
me. I refused, but he insisted, saying that we were going to get
married anyway. Despite my clear refusal, he forcibly engaged in
sexual relations with me. I was in no condition to resist. The next
morning, when I regained full consciousness, I realized what had
happened and started crying. Dushyant consoled me, saying, "Why
are you crying? We will get married." Later, he took me to India
Gate for an outing, and by the evening, I returned to my home in
1 Details of the complainant have been masked
Kushinagar. When my period was delayed, I informed Dushyant,
and he asked me to take a pregnancy test. Upon testing, I found out
that I was pregnant. When I informed him, he insisted that I take
abortion pills, warning that my upcoming physical fitness test for
the police recruitment would be affected. He pleaded with me over
video calls, urging me to terminate the pregnancy. Under his
pressure, I took the abortion pills. However, to avoid suspicion at
home, I did not consult a doctor. After the abortion, Dushyant's
behavior changed drastically. He stopped talking to me, and when I
confronted him, he clearly stated that he did not want to marry me.
He then blocked me from all means of communication. During this
time, he also threatened to falsely implicate me and my family in
legal cases, due to which I was afraid to report the incident earlier.
Dushyant deceived me with false promises of marriage and
exploited me physically. I request legal action against him.
Complainant: ***** Mobile *****.
Attested by: SI Manisha Sharma, PS Sarai Rohilla Date: 25-10-24.
Respected Sir,
While I, SI, was present at the police station, the Duty Officer
presented the complainant before me for necessary action. After
preliminary discussions, the complainant underwent counseling,
and she submitted her written statement. Based on her statement, it
was found that an offense under Sections 376 (Rape) and
506(Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had
been committed. To register the case, the written complaint was
submitted to the Duty Officer. An FIR was registered, and the
complainant was informed of the case number. The original
complaint and FIR copy were handed over to me for further action.
Date & Time of Incident: 04/12/2023 at 4 PM to 05/12/2023 at
01:00 PM
Place of Incident: Hotel Delhi Delight, 9834-A, Ahata Thakur
Dass, Sarai Rohilla,
Railway Station, Gate No. 1, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
Date & Time of Complaint Submission: 25/10/2024 at 02:55 PM
Signed: SI
Manisha Sharma, PS Sarai Rohilla Date: 25/10/24 Police Action:
A complaint was submitted by W/SI Manisha Sharma on
25/10/2024. Upon receipt of the complaint, I, ASI, registered case
no. 609/24 under Sections 376/506 IPC and ensured that the FIR
copy and original complaint were recorded in the register. The
original documents and FIR copy were handed over to W/SI
Manisha Sharma for further legal proceedings. All relevant details
were communicated to the SHO, and additional documents will be
forwarded to senior officers via postal dispatch.
13 Action Taken Since the above information reveals
commission of offence(s) u/s as mentioned at Item no.2:
(i) Registered the case and took up the investigation:
(ii) Directed (Name of the I.O.): MANISHA SHARMA Rank:
SI (Sub-Inspector)
(iii) Refused investigation due to:
(iv) Transferred to P.S.
District:
FIR read over to the complainant/informant admitted to be
correctly recorded and a copy given to the complainant/informant
free of cost:
ROAC
14 Signature/Thumb Impression of the complainant/Informant
Signature of Officer Name: Tej Pal Singh Rank: ASST. SI
No. 28910523
15 Date and Time of Despatch to the Court:"
Chargesheet dated 15 January 2025
"MEMORANDUM
Sh. Dushyant, Under Suspension SI/RPF/Post/RB now attached at
Sr.DSC Res./West/Delhi (Name & Designation of the member of
the force) is hereby informed that it is proposed to hold an enquiry
against him under Rule 153 of Railway Protection Force Rules,
1987. The allegations on which the enquiry is deposed to be held
are set out in the enclosed statement of allegations and the charges
framed on the basis of the said allegations and the charges are
specified in the enclosed statement of charges. A list of document
by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges
are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed.
Smt. Sangam Yadav, IPF/RPF/SNP is nominated as Enquiry
officer.
The enquiry is fixed 28.01.2025 at 10:00 Hrs. at
IPF/RPF/SNP's office, you should attend the enquiry, failing which
the enquiry will be conducted ex-parte.
Sh. Dushyant, Under Suspension SI/RPF/Post/RB now
attached at Sr.DSC Res./West/Delhi while presenting itself before
the enquiry officer may,
a) Furnish names and addresses of witnesses, if any whom he
wishes to call on support of his defence.
b) Furnish the list of documents, if any, which he wishes to,
produce in support of his defence.
c) Sh. Dushyant, Under Suspension SI/RPF/Post/RB now
attached at Sr.DSC Res./West/Delhi is further informed that if for
the purpose of preparing his defence he wishes to inspect and take
extracts from any official records, he should furnish a list of such
records to the enquiry officer not late on---------- (indicating
allowing at least clear one week) so that arrangements may be
made to provide facilities for the purpose. He should, however,
note that if in the opinion of the enquiry officer such records are
not relevant for the purpose, or it is against the public interest
allow him access to such records, he will not be permitted to
inspect or take extracts from such records.
1 The attention of Sh. Dushyant, Under Suspension
SI/RPF/Post/RB now attached at Sr.DSC Res./ West/Delhi is
invited to Rule 143 and 145 of RPF Rules, 1987 under which
members of the Force are forbidden from bringing or attempting to
bring any political or other outside influence to bear upon any
superior activity to further his interest in respect of matter
pertaining to his service under the Government. If any
representation is received on his behalf from any other person in
respect of any matter dealt within these proceedings it will be
presumed that Sh. Dushyant, Under Suspension SI/RPF/Post/RB
now attached at Sr.DSC Res./ West/Delhi is aware of such a
representation and that it has been made at his instance and action
will be taken against him for violation of the said Rules.
2 Sh. Dushyant, Under Suspension SI/RPF/Post/RB now
attached at Sr.DSC Res./West/Delhi should acknowledge receipt of
this charge sheet on the date, it is presented to him by giving his
signatures or thumb impression on the acknowledgement form.
DA/Chargesheet, statement of allegation,
List of witnesses and list of relied upon documents"
Statement of Imputation
"On 04.11.2024, at approximately 19:00 hours, Sub-Inspector
Dushyant, RPF/Rail Bhawan Post, informed Inspector, RPF/Rail
Bhawan Post that Sub-Inspector Vijay Maan (whom he was
already acquainted with) had conveyed that a complaint had been
lodged against him by a woman named *****, *****.
Consequently, he was summoned to the Sarai Rohilla Police
Station, Delhi, for questioning. Upon receiving this information,
the Inspector, RPF/Rail Bhawan Post, informed the Assistant
Security Commissioner, RPF/Rail Bhawan Post, about the matter
and proceeded to Sarai Rohilla Police Station, Delhi, to gather
further details regarding Sub-Inspector Dushyant, RPF/Rail
Bhawan Post. It was stated by Investigation Officer Sub-Inspector
Manisha Sharma that a case under Sections 376 and 506 IPC had
been registered against Sub-Inspector Dushyant, RPF/Rail Bhawan
Post, based on a complaint lodged by the woman *****, *****, at
Sarai Rohilla Police Station, Delhi, on 25.10.2024. Sub-Inspector
Dushyant, RPF/Rail Bhawan Post, admitted in his statement that he
had known the complainant since 2020 through Facebook and had
met her in Delhi in December 2023, where they had breakfast
together.
As per FIR No. 609/2024, U/S 376, 506 IPC, dated 25.10.2024,
registered at Police Station, Delhi Sarai Rohilla, the complainant,
*****, filed a complaint against Shri Dushyant, Sub-Inspector,
RPF/Rail Bhawan Post, stating: "I, the complainant, *****, *****,
am residing in Saiyan. My contact number is *****. In the year
2020, I came into contact with the accused, Dushyant, through
Facebook. Within a few days, we exchanged phone numbers and
started talking over the phone. Dushyant often called me from his
number 7300297298. Our friendship gradually turned into love,
and Dushyant proposed marriage, to which I agreed. After about
two years, when I became suspicious, I directly asked Dushyant
whether he was married. He admitted everything. Upon learning
this, I stopped talking to him. For about one to two months, I
avoided any contact with him, but he started having his friends call
me and insist that I speak to him at least once. When I finally
talked to Dushyant, he told me that his wife was no longer living
with him, that they were having disputes, and that they would be
getting divorced soon. In December 2023, I was returning home to
***** from my hostel in Jaipur to prepare for the UP Police exam,
scheduled for February 2024. However, Dushyant requested me to
stop in Delhi to celebrate his birthday and assured me that he
would book my ticket. I agreed and traveled to Delhi for his
birthday celebration. On December 4, 2023, I arrived at Delhi Sarai
Rohilla Station between 4-5 PM, and from there, Dushyant took
me to a hotel nearby. However, no one else was present at the
celebration except Dushyant. When I asked him why no one else
had come, he said that since I was there, no one else was needed.
After celebrating his birthday, before going to sleep, he gave me
something mixed with an intoxicating substance, due to which I
lost consciousness. Taking advantage of my state, he forcibly tried
to have physical relations with me. I refused and told him that I
would not do anything before marriage. However, despite my
resistance, he forced himself on me. I was not in a condition to
resist his advances. When I woke up in the morning and regained
full consciousness, I realized what had happened and started
crying. Dushyant consoled me, saying there was no need to cry as
we would get married. Later, he took me to visit India Gate, and in
the evening, I returned home to XXXXXXXXX by train. When my
menstrual cycle was delayed, I informed Dushyant. He asked me to
check using a pregnancy test kit. Upon testing, I found out that I
was pregnant. When I told him about it, he insisted that I take
abortion pills. I refused, but he pressured me, saying that I had my
police physical examination coming up and that I wouldn't be able
to clear it if I were pregnant. He even pleaded with me over a video
call, saying that we could have children later. Eventually, I gave in
to his pressure and took the abortion pills. After my abortion, I
didn't consult a doctor, fearing that my family might find out. After
that, Dushyant's behavior completely changed. He stopped talking
to me. When I confronted him about his sudden change, he bluntly
told me that he had no intention of marrying me. Following this,
Dushyant blocked me everywhere and even threatened to falsely
implicate me and my family in legal cases. Out of fear, I did not
file a complaint earlier. Dushyant deceived me with false promises
of marriage and established physical relations with me against my
will. Therefore, I request legal action to be taken against him." In
coordination with the manager of Hotel Delight, Delhi Sarai
Rohilla, an inquiry was conducted regarding any room booking
under the names of Dushyant or ***** on the dates 04.12.2023 and
05.12.2023. According to the hotel records, a room with entry
number 4724 was booked under the names of Dushyant Yadav and
***** on 04.12.2023, which was vacated on the morning of
05.12.2023. Therefore, the possibility of both individuals meeting
cannot be ruled out.
In light of the above actions of Shri Dushyant, son of Shri Chhote
Lal, a suspended Sub-Inspector, RPF/Rail Bhawan Post, it is
evident that he has neglected his official duties, engaged in
suspicious conduct, and tarnished the image of the force.
Consequently, he is being charged under Rule 153 of the RPF
Rules, 1987.
Security Commissioner-II
Railway Protection Force
Delhi"
5. There is a considerable body of law on the aspect of whether the
disciplinary proceedings can be directed to be stayed, pending the
continuance of conclusion of criminal proceedings based on the same
allegations and, perhaps, even on the same evidence.
6. One may chart the precedential history thus:
Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd v Girish V2
10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Karnataka
SRTC v M.G. Vittal Rao3 is a timely reminder of the principles
that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the
following words:
(i) There is no legal bar for both the proceedings to go
on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the
disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure
that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may
not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be
available only in cases involving complex questions of facts
2 (2014) 3 SCC 636
3 (2012) 1 SCC 442
and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to
unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The
interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer
clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings.
(iv) Departmental proceedings can go on
simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the
proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the
evidence in both the proceedings is common.
11. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt. M.
Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.4 ,where this Court
reviewed the case law on the subject to identify the following
broad principles for application in the facts and circumstances of a
given case:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a
criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar
in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal
case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the
charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee
is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions
of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the
departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal
case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is
grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law
are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of
offence, the nature of the case launched against the
employee on the basis of evidence and material collected
against him during investigation or as reflected in the
charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot
be considered in isolation to stay the departmental
proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that
the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal
is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings,
4 (1999) 3 SCC 679
even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the
criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to
conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is
found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case
he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at
the earliest.
*****
16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the
holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial
simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an
advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the
employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings
is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court.
Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to
determine the question unless the charge involves complicated
question of law and fact. The court examining the question must
also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely
especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large
as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by
the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance
between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and
the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the
ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion
of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to
be in the interest of the employees.
SBI v Neelam Nag5
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some
length. The only question that arises for consideration is no more
res integra. It is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct
of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously.
However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has
to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters
on case-to-case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by
the Court has been delineated in a series of decisions.
*****
18. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we
accede to the contention of the appellants that the pendency of the
criminal case against the respondent cannot be the sole basis to
5 (2016) 9 SCC 491
suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Respondent 1
for an indefinite period; and in larger public interest, the order as
passed in Stanzen case be followed even in the fact situation of the
present case, to balance the equities.
SBI v P. Zadenga6,
23. Keeping in view Neelam Nag , the following essentialities
may be culled out for the operation of Clause 4:
(a) At least one year ought to have passed since
attempts to get the delinquent employee prosecuted;
(b) If, after the passage of such time, no prosecution is
initiated, then the department may proceed in accordance
with its procedure for disciplinary action;
(c) If the prosecution commences later in point of time
to the disciplinary proceedings, the latter shall be stayed,
but not indefinitely. Such proceedings are to be stayed only
for a reasonable period of time, which is a matter of
determination as per the circumstances of each case.
*****
31. As a principle of law, we have already observed that a
departmental proceeding pending criminal trial would not warrant
an automatic stay unless, of course, a complicated question of law
is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not
be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of
a delinquent employee.
7. From a reading of the aforesaid judgments, the principles that
emerge are the following:
(i) Stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending criminal
trial is not automatic or a matter of course but can only be
granted for a reasonable period of time depending on the
circumstances of each case.
6 (2023) 10 SCC 675
(ii) The gravity of the charge is itself not enough for stay,
unless there is a complicated question of law involved or
if the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings would
prejudice the applicant's case before the criminal court.
(iii) A balance needs to be drawn between the need for a fair
trial and the expeditious completion of the proceedings.
8. Thus, it is clear that there is no sacrosanct principle of law that,
merely because the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal
proceedings are based on the same set of facts, and involve the same
allegations, the concerned officer or employee has an inflexible right
to stay of the disciplinary proceedings pending conclusion of the
criminal proceedings.
9. The decisions cited supra also note the concern expressed by
the employee that, if the disciplinary proceedings are allowed to
continue, it may result in the employee having to disclose his defence,
which may prejudice his case in the criminal proceedings. Despite
this, the Supreme Court has held that courts should not, merely on this
consideration, stay disciplinary proceedings, especially whether the
charge involved is grave, in which case the interests of justice require
that the proceedings are brought to an end expeditiously.
10. Ergo, the Supreme Court has included, among the
considerations which should guide courts in that regard, the issue of
whether the charges are grave, and whether the case involves complex
issues of fact and law, as would be required to be appropriately
decided by the Court.
11. Though Mr. Bharat Bhushan emphatically sought to contend
that the present case involves complex questions of fact and law, to
our opinion, a bare reading of the charge against the petitioner does
not reveal this to be the case. The issue in question is merely whether
the petitioner has, or has not, committed the act or acts with which he
has been charged, whether in the disciplinary proceedings or in the
criminal case. The fact that this may require evidence to be led, and
the statement of witnesses, perhaps, to be recorded, does not ipso facto
render it a case involving complex questions of fact and law. The
Inquiry Officer is well within his authority in calling for the witnesses
and in recording the statements.
12. Mr. Bharat Bhushan has placed reliance on the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh in Talendra
Chandrakar v State of Chhattisgarh7.
13. With respect, we find that the said decision does not address the
issue of whether the questions of fact and law involved in the case for
complex, so as to justify a stay of the disciplinary proceedings. This,
as we have noted, is a relevant consideration, which has to be borne in
mind before any order of stay is passed. We therefore regret our
inability to subscribe with the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Talendra Chandrakar.
7 Judgment Dated 1 July 2020 in WPS No.2386/2020
14. As such, we are not inclined to grant the relief sought in the writ
petition, which is for staying the disciplinary proceedings, pending
either conclusion of the criminal case or conclusion of recording of
evidence in the criminal proceedings.
15. However, given the nature of the allegations against the
petitioner, we grant liberty to the petitioner, should he so choose, to
make a request to the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry
proceedings in camera, so that the proceedings are not made public
and do not fall into the wrong hands. In case such a request is made,
we expect the Inquiry Officer to take a proactive view in the matter
and if possible, to accede to the request.
16. Subject to the aforesaid limited caveat, we find no reason to
grant the reliefs in the writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MARCH 26, 2025/aky
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
