Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aakash Verma vs Union Bank Of India (2024:Rj-Jd:41811) on 10 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:41811]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16985/2024
Aakash Verma S/o Shri Uma Shankar Sagar, Aged About 34
Years, R/o C-64, Rameshwar Nagar, Basani First Phase, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Bank Of India, Through Its Chief Manager, Erd,
Union Bank Of India, Human Resource Department,
Employee Relation Division, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Field General Manager Office (Fgmo),
Iind Floor, Orbit Mall Ajmer Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/10/2024
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of the
initiation of departmental equiry under Rule 6 of the Union of India
Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 against
him and issuance of the charge-sheet dated 27.03.2024
(Annex.7). The alternative prayer of the petitioner is to stay the
proceedings of the departmental enquiry till completion of the
criminal trial pending against him arising out of FIR No.310/2023
registered at the Police Station Shashtri Nagar, District Jodhpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while maintaining that the
disciplinary enquiry in question firstly cannot be continued as the
[2024:RJ-JD:41811] (2 of 3) [CW-16985/2024]
respondent department is having no material in relation to the
delinquency or the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner,
further contended that continuation of such enquiry is bound to
prejudice petitioner's defence in the criminal trial. While relying
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt.
M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported
in (1999) 3 SCC 679, learned counsel urged that in light of the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
departmental enquiry cannot continue against the petitioner,
regardless of the nature of the offences alleged.
3. Having perused the memorandum of charges served upon
the petitioner and after considering the law on the subject, more
particularly the judgments cited, this court is of the view that the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner deserves to be kept
on hold.
4. Accordingly, it is ordered that the departmental enquiry
initiated against the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Regulations,
1976, in relation to which the impugned memorandum and
charge-sheet dated 27.03.2024 (Annex.7) has been served upon
him, shall remain stayed till culmination of the criminal trial
pending against him arising out of FIR No.310/2023 registered at
the Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur. After culmination
of the trial in the aforesaid case, the disciplinary authority shall
take up the proceedings from the current stage under intimation
to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. It
is made clear that the outcome of the criminal trial shall not
influence the departmental enquiry as would be proceeded with
[2024:RJ-JD:41811] (3 of 3) [CW-16985/2024]
subsequently and department would be at liberty to proceed with
in accordance with law.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.
6. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
283-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
