Kedarnath Mahapatra vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2954 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2954 Tel
Judgement Date : 21 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

Kedarnath Mahapatra vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



             WRIT APPEAL No.544 of 2020

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The appellant before this Court has filed this writ

appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned

Single Judge in W.P.No.3680 of 2018, dated 04.05.2020.


     The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before

this Court, who is serving as a Principal at Atomic Energy

Central School-2, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings

as well as prosecution for an offence under Section 354(a)

of IPC read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.              An FIR was lodged on

24.11.2017 and later on he was placed under suspension

by an order dated 07.11.2017 and enquiry proceedings

were initiated on 29.11.2017.              The enquiry officer was

appointed on 01.08.2017 and in that backdrop, the writ

petition was preferred before this Court for staying the

departmental enquiry proceedings.                 The learned Single
                                         2




Judge has dismissed the writ petition, against which the

present writ appeal has been preferred and the fact

remains that there was no interim order granted by the

Division Bench. We are in the year 2022.


         This Court is of the considered opinion that as no

interim order was granted by the Division Bench, the

respondent         is   under      an   obligation        to     conclude      the

departmental enquiry at an early date.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen

Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V1 has held as

under:-

"19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the trial court will take effective steps to

1 (2014) 3 SCC 636

ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the criminal case to cooperate with the trial court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that the trials often linger on for a long time on account of non- availability of the defence lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the trial court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the inquiry officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has

held that departmental enquiry proceedings can be kept in

abeyance for a period of one year and in the present case,

the FIR itself was lodged in the year 2017, charge sheet

was issued in 2017 and the question of staying the

disciplinary proceedings at this juncture does not arise.

The respondent is directed to conclude the

departmental enquiry as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of three months from today.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands disposed

of.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall