Orissa High Court
Bagadu Lakshmi Pathi vs Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8942 of 2025
Bagadu Lakshmi Pathi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Swapna Kumar Ojha
-versus-
Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I.
along with
Mr.Jagyan Balk Mohanty,
C.G.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
DSGI along with Mr.Jagyan Balk Mohanty, learned C.G.C. for
Union of India. Perused the writ petition and documents annexed
therewith.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that earlier the
Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9776 of 2024.
This Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 pleased to stay the
Disciplinary proceeding for a period of one year with a direction to
the trial court to expedite the criminal trial involving the present
Petitioner. Despite such order dated 24.04.2024 the trial in the
criminal case has not been concluded, therefore, the Petitioner has
again approached virtually for extension of order dated 24.04.2024.
4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that during pendency of criminal trial, filing of defence by
the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding will jeopardize the
prospect of the delinquent-Petitioner involved in the criminal case,
this Court finds support for the submission of learned counsel in the
aforesaid context from the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court
reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416, decided taking support of the old
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 155.
Similar view has also been taken in a judgment reported in (2012) 1
SCC- 442.
5. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for
stay of the Departmental Proceeding involving the Petitioner till
finalization of the Department Proceeding under Section 3 (a) RP
(UP) Act-1966 of RPF POST MPM, Case No.7/2022 dt.02.09.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party draws the attention of
this Court to the charges framed by Criminal Court and in the
Disciplinary Proceeding and contends that the disciplinary
proceeding has been initiated against Petitioner for suppression of
information regarding his involvement in criminal case and, as such,
the charges in both the cases are different. Therefore, he submits that
the ratio decided in aforesaid Supreme Court judgments are not
applicable to the facts of the present case and the disciplinary
proceeding against the Petitioner should not be stayed awaiting the
verdict in criminal case and further prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. This Court on a careful scrutiny of the charges in both
proceedings partly agrees with the submission made by learned ASC
for the state. The charges in criminal case no doubt forms the basis
for the initiation of D.P. in addition to the charge that such
information was not disclosed to the employer by the employee in
violation of the service Rules. However, this Court is also of the
view that while continuing with the D.P. the Petitioner would be
required to disclose his defence which might be detrimental to his
interest involved in the criminal trial.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a
careful analysis of the rival contentions and upon a scrutiny of the
writ petition and the documents attached to it, this Court in the
greater interest of justice deems it proper to dispose of the writ
petition by directing that the Disciplinary Proceeding against the
Petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of six months from the
date of this order. Further, on production of a certified copy of this
order by the Petitioner, the Court in seisin of the trial of the case
arising out of Case No.7/2022 dt.02.09.2022 under Section 3 (a) RP
(UP) Act shall expedite the trial and make every endeavour to
conclude the trial within six months. Parties are directed to cooperate
with the trial court and in the event, the charge sheet has been filed.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer Page 3 of 3.
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 03-Apr-2025 10:39:47
