W.A. No. 333/2010
12.5.2010.
Shri K.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned GA for respondents.
As respondents have already put in appearance on
advance notice, default is waived.
Heard on question of admission.
Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition 2817/2010(s)
praying for the relief for quashment of charge sheet (P.2)
dated 7.12.07 and memorandum of charge sheet (P.3) dated
6.6.08.
It was mainly contended by the petitioner that
departmental enquiry cannot go simultaneously with the
proceedings under Income Tax Act pending on the basis of
seizure operation conducted at the residence of petitioner
by the Income Tax Department. Petitioner also contended
that there was no material to sustain the charge sheet as
such it be quashed.
Petitioner was holding the post of Director of Health
Services on 7.9.07. Search was conducted by the Income
Tax Department and unaccounted cash of Rs.1.13 crores in
Indian currency and 4.5 lacs in foreign currency was seized
from the petitioner’s residence. It was contended by the
petitioner that said house does not belong to the petitioner,
and the amount seized belong to his son. However, on the
basis of material collected , the charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner. However, without conducting departmental
enquiry into the charge sheet, the petitioner was
compulsorily retired under Rule 42(1)(b) of M.P. Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Petitioner had assailed the
order of compulsory retirement by way of filing WP No.
386/2008. This Court vide Order (P.5) dated 14.11.2008
quashed the order of compulsory retirement and gave
liberty to the department to proceed with the departmental
action. State Government assailed the order passed by the
Single Judge in WA No.134/2009. Division Bench of this
Court dismissed the writ appeal vide Order (P.6) dated
23.7.09.
Petitioner was suspended and the respondents
continued the departmental enquiry. The order of
suspension was assailed by way of filing writ application,
the same was also dismissed by this Court. Thereafter,
petitioner has filed WP No. 2817/10(s) assailing the charge
sheet and the supplementary charge sheet. It was
contended that the departmental enquiry be kept in
abeyance as the proceedings pending before the Income Tax
authorities and the allegations leveled in the charge sheet
are similar. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ application by the impugned order, aggrieved thereby
the instant writ appeal has been preferred.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the opinion that we cannot quash the charge sheet. The
main prayer made in the writ petition was with respect to
quashment of charge sheet. In our considered opinion the
departmental enquiry could not have been stayed due to
pendency of proceedings under Income Tax Act pursuant to
search and seizure which was made. Huge unaccounted
cash worth Rs.1.13 crores in Indian currency and Rs.4.5
lacs in foreign currency was seized from the house of
petitioner. In our opinion scope of income tax proceedings
is totally different than that of departmental proceedings
are totally different. By disclosing the defence and adducing
evidence in pending departmental enquiry, it could not be
said that any prejudice was going to be caused to the
petitioner. It was not such a case in which any indulgence
was called for on the basis of submission which was raised.
We find the order passed by learned Single Judge to be in
accordance with law. We are agree with the reasons
employed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the
writ petition.
Resultantly, there is no merits in the writ appeal, it is
hereby dismissed. No costs.
(Arun Mishra) (S.C.Sinho)
Judge. Judge.
jk.