Sanjeev Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5364 MP

                  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      1                                  R.P.No.10/2022
                 (Sanjeev Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior Bench:Dated -12/04/2022
      Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

      Shri   Rohit   Shrivastava,   learned    Panel   Lawyer     for   the

respondents/State.

With consent heard finally.

1. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner purportedly under

the cover of Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking review but in

fact it is an application for extension of time in respect of order

dated 12-03-2021 passed in writ petition No.3687/2021.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a

criminal case was registered against him vide crime No.659/2019

for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(1)

(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Charge-sheet was filed against the

petitioner who was working at the relevant point of time as police

constable at Vidisha. In view of the fact that on same set of

allegations, departmental enquiry was also initiated, therefore,

petitioner preferred writ petition referred above. In the said writ

petition, vide order dated 12-03-2021, this Court disposed of the

said writ petition with certain directions in which it is found that

departmental enquiry and criminal trial are at the same set of facts,

therefore, taking cue from the judgment of Apex Court in the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Sanjeev Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.)

matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.

and another (1999) 3 SCC 679, departmental enquiry was kept

in abeyance for 1 year and criminal trial was allowed to be

proceeded and it was observed that if criminal trial is not

concluded within a period of one year, then it would be opened to

the respondents to resume the departmental enquiry.

3. Now apprehension of petitioner is restart of departmental enquiry.

He fairly informs this Court that complainant and material

prosecution witnesses have been examined and incidentally

prosecutrix did not support the story of prosecution and declared

hostile. It is further submitted that now some of the witnesses are

likely to be examined although, not so significant but in

departmental enquiry defence of petitioner, if any, may open,

therefore, departmental enquiry be stayed for another one year.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and

submitted that since material prosecution witnesses have been

examined therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner

if departmental enquiry restarts.

5. Heard.

6. This is the case where petitioner is seeking extension of time

whereby seeking further one year for departmental enquiry to be

kept in abeyance so that meanwhile, criminal trial may conclude.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

(Sanjeev Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P.)

However, looking to the status of trial wherein prosecutrix was

examined and declared hostile because she did not support the

prosecution story and investigating officer has also been examined

before the trial Court, therefore, apparently chance of opening up

of defence of accused is remote. However, for balancing the

equity, it is imperative that departmental enquiry may restart but,

with a caveat that it shall not be finalised till criminal trial is

concluded and judgment is passed in the said trial.

7. Resultantly, review petition is partially allowed to the extent that

departmental enquiry shall restart and all the parties concerned

shall participate into it without any fail, but final order shall not be

passed and enquiry officer and competent authority shall wait for

outcome of criminal trial and thereafter pass verdict in

departmental enquiry as per law.

8. Review petition stand disposed of in above terms.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil*

ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2022.04.08 12:25:24

-07'00'