Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1808 (RAJ)

Badri Lal Mali v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-22

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
ORDER 1. By way of present writ petition, while challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents vide notice dated 26.08.2020, the petitioner has alternatively prayed that the proceedings in furtherance thereto be kept in abeyance until criminal proceedings pursuant to the FIR No.105/2017 culminates. 2. The facts appropos the relief claimed are, that the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a case against the petitioner on the basis of news item published in newspaper. 3. After completion of the investigation, an FIR running into 84 pages, came to be filed. Later, the disciplinary authority proceeded to launch a departmental inquiry against the petitioner by way of serving a notice dated 26.08.2020, along with memorandum of charges and statement of allegation. 4. The charge framed against the petitioner in the inquiry under challenge reads thus:- 3TPT 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the inquiry in question is based upon the facts, which have been investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and argued that the respondent Department is not having any supporting material or witness who can depose or prove the allegation that the petitioner had devoured public money by claiming false medical bills. 6. Learned counsel informed that the criminal case has not proceeded substantially and challan has not yet been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 13.09.2021 rendered in case of Bhagirath Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2682/2021. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law. 9. Having perused the memorandum of charges served upon the petitioner and after considering the law laid down in the case of Bhagirath Ram (supra), this Court is of the view that the inquiry against the petitioner deserves to be kept on hold. 10. The fact that the petitioner had wrongfully claimed medical bills and has cleared non-genuine medical bills, is a complicated question of fact to be determined by the enquiry officer, particularly when all the bills and relevant documents have been taken in custody by the Anti-Corruption Department. As the documentary evidence is not in possession of the respondents -they cannot complete the inquiry for want of incriminating evidence. 11. As the documentary evidence is not in possession of the respondents -they cannot complete the inquiry for want of incriminating evidence. 11. By way of order dated 24.11.2020, this Court has stayed the disciplinary proceedings, which were set in motion on 26.08.2020.The case against the petitioner in the competent court is still at its initial stage. 12. The sword of damocles cannot be kept hanging over the petitioner's head over indefinite period. Even if the proceedings are to be stayed, they cannot be stayed ad infinitum or infinitely. In order to strike a balance between the petitioner's rights of defence and zeal to protract the inquiry and State's anxiety and concern to conclude the inquiry expeditiously and in order to ward off undue haste or inordinate delay, the writ petition is disposed of with the following timeline:- (i) The disciplinary proceedings shall remain stayed for a period of three years from today. (ii) Petitioner will be required to file his statement in defence/reply along with the list of witnesses (if any) within a period of 30 days from today. Such period is extendable by not more than 30 days for reasons to be recorded by the disciplinary authority, if facts and circumstances so warrant. (iii) After completion of three years, the disciplinary authority shall resume the proceedings by giving at least a 15 days' notice to the delinquent/employee of his intentions so to do and to inform about the status of criminal case. (iv) It will be required of the petitioner - employee to place relevant material, including copies of the order-sheets/ proceedings of the Court, stage of the trial, list of witnesses and number of witnesses examined by that time and any other relevant information. (v) The petitioner will be free to make a request to adjourn the proceedings further, while indicating reasons and grounds for the same. (vi) The disciplinary authority in such event, shall independently apply his mind on the material placed and progression of the criminal case and decide as to whether the enquiry is required to be stayed any further. (vii) In case, the disciplinary authority is of the view that the enquiry is required to be kept on hold any further, he will keep the same in abeyance for a further period, not more than two years. (vii) In case, the disciplinary authority is of the view that the enquiry is required to be kept on hold any further, he will keep the same in abeyance for a further period, not more than two years. (viii) On completion of such period (total five years), the disciplinary authority shall take up the proceedings by appointing an inquiry officer under intimation to the petitioner, who shall, then, proceed in accordance with law, while following procedure provided under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules of 1958. (ix) Needless to observe that if criminal case itself is decided either way, during the aforesaid period of three/five years, the disciplinary authority shall be free to resume the inquiry, of course while observing principles of natural justice. (x) Above time frame is a broad guideline and directory in nature; non adherence thereto will not per-se vitiate the proceedings. 13. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.