ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. The petitioner assails the charge-memo issued to him on 18-1-1995 by the respondents on the grounds that simultaneous departmental proceedings cannot be taken against him till the finalisation of Criminal Case No. 32 of 1995 filed against him on the file of the Addl. Magistrate, R. R. District.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner had been working as an assistant Registrar in the University and to the best of his ability he has been discharging his duties. Of late, he was asked to look after the welfare wing of the students and while doing so certain allegations were made against him as to the mismanagement of funds etc. along with five others. It is said that the misappropriation of funds was to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. Under this charge, as many as six persons are booked in the Criminal case No. 32 of 1995, three persons including the petitioner belonging to the University, one person working in the Sub-Treasury Office and other two working in the Social Welfare Department. While matters stood thus, the respondent-University has now contemplated departmental enquiry to be held against the writ petitioner as well as few others. In that connection, the Memo dated 18-1-1995 was issued by the first respondent for causing departmental enquiry. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking stay of the departmental enquiry till the disposal of the criminal proceedings pending before the competent criminal Court.
3. On behalf of the respondents, a vacate stay petition has been filed. At the outset the vacate petitioners have tried to point out that a caveat application as required under Section 148-A C.P.C. was filed in the Office of the High Court enabling a notice to the respondents for making their appearance as and when the matter comes up before this Court for consideration. It is alleged that despite a caveat being filed, the respondents have not been served and therefore an ex parte order has been obtained by the petitioner, which according to the counsel for the respondents any order in the background of the caveat petition has to be necessarily vacated. Even otherwise, it is contended by him that two persons from the Social Welfare Department, against whom charge-sheets were also issued along with the writ petitioner and who are as charged in Crl. Case No. 32 of 1995, filed W.P. No. 6552 of 1995 and this Court granted conditional stay on 7-4-1995 for a period of 10 days. Thereafter, the stay was not extended. Counsel further states that the respondents are desirous to proceed against the petitioner also in the Departmental enquiry along with other persons who are involved in this crime. But for the stay obtained by the petitioner, the enquiry would have reached a final stage. The respondents are finding it difficult to proceed with the Departmental enquiry. As such, they have approached this Court for an appropriate order in this matter.
4. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. Khushal Bhan . Tata Oil Mills v. Workmen Kusheshwar v. Bharat Coking Coaa Ltd. 1988 II CLR 497 and P. J. Sunderarajan v. Unit Trust of India 1939 SLR 21 in support of his contention that wen criminal proceedings are pending in a competent Criminal court, the authorities cannot proceed with the departmental enquiry on the same set of facts. Counsel says that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the respondents cannot be allowed to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner when the criminal case is pending on the same set of facts.
5. I am in entire agreement with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above. I do not think, the said reasoning could be made applicable in the present set of facts. Respondents have stated before this Court the similarly placed persons against whom charge-sheets have been filed, are subjected to the enquiry and the petitioner being one of the parties, it would be impossible for the respondents to go on with the enquiry excluding the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents cannot have two types of enquiries, one for the petitioner and another for others as it would cause lot of inconvenience. Under these circumstances, when an enquiry is to be proceeded against two other persons, the respondents should be allowed to proceed against this petitioner also who is a party to the same allegations. Even otherwise, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents, that the facts of this case are different than the facts which were the subject matter before the Supreme Court.
6. May be one or two ingredients of the charges are akin to the charges in the Memo, but the other charges are different and therefore, thre is no NEXUS between the charges which are the subject matter of criminal case No. 32 of 1993 and the charges in the Memo issued by the respondents on 18-1-1995. In this background, the Counsel says that the decisions relied by the Counsel cannot be made applicable and therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
7. A reading of the charge memo and the grounds in the complaint in Crime No. 32/95 to disclose that certain facets of allegations are different than that of criminal proceedings. On the same set of issues, simultaneous enquiry by the Court as well as the concerned department is generally not permitted on the ground that the evidence of the party would be exposed and that evidence may be used against him in another forum. In this case, the facets of enquiry in criminal proceedings are different than that departmental enquiry. I am of the view, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if departmental enquiry is allowed to be proceeded with, against him along with others who are also parties to the same scandal of misappropriation of public moneys to the tune of more than Rs. 20 lakhs.
8. As discussed by me in the foregoing paras, prima facie, I am of the view that some ingredients of the charges in the chargememo dated 18-1-1995 are different from the charges levelled against the petitioner in Cr. No. 32 of 1995. Even otherwise, when the respondents are proceeding with an enquiry against other accomplices, there is no justification for this Court to prevent the respondents from proceeding with the departmental enquiry against this petitioner also as the common cause for enquiry is on and the same against all. Therefore, I am not persuaded to hold that the enquiry now being contemplated is improper in the wake of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court sited supra. Since I am convinced that the respondents could be permitted to proceed with the enquiry, I do no proposed to goo into the other submissions i.e., the implication of non-compliance of the provisions contemplated under Section 148-A of C.P.C. for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition.
9. I do not see any merits in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.