Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39710) on 24 September, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:39710]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11692/2024
Prakash Vishnoi S/o Jagmala Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
Jambhoji Ka Mandir, Kabuli, District Barmer (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary
Education, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jay Ram Saran
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
Mr. D.S. Pidiyar
Mr. Raman Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
24/09/2024
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 16 of the CCA Rules,
1958 against him and issuance of the charge-sheet dated
08.04.2024 (Annex.4). 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.1092/2022 registered at the Police Station Mathura Gate,
District Bharatpur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while maintaining that the
disciplinary enquiry in question firstly cannot be continued as the
[2024:RJ-JD:39710] (2 of 3) [CW-11692/2024]
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. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the
strictness of proof in the criminal trial is very high, whereas the
same is not that stringent, when it comes to departmental enquiry
and as such the respondents should be permitted to proceed with
the subject enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to fortify their submissions :-
(i) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. : (1996) 6 SCC
(ii) Stenzen Toyotestsu India Private Ltd. Vs. Girish V. &
Ors. : (2014) 3 SCC 636
4. Having perused the memorandum of charges served upon
the petitioner and after considering the law on the subject, more
particularly the judgments cited by the rival parties, this court is
of the view that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner
deserves to be kept on hold.
[2024:RJ-JD:39710] (3 of 3) [CW-11692/2024]
5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the departmental enquiry
initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules,
1958, in relation to which the impugned memorandum and
charge-sheet dated 08.04.2024 (Annex.4) has been served upon
him, shall remain stayed till culmination of the criminal trial
pending against him arising out of FIR No.1092/2022 registered at
the Police Station Mathura Gate, District Bharatpur. 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 subsequently.
6. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms.
7. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
8-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
