Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Heard. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant laboriously tried to point out that the list of witnesses in the departmental enquiry and the documents sought to be produced in the departmental enquiry overlap with those in the criminal cases pending against him. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that through an internal Circular dated 16.02.2010, and previous internal Circular dated 19.11.1990, the respondent/CBI itself had prescribed that if the charge sheet is filed in the criminal case on the same facts and allegations, the departmental penalty proceedings may not be initiated, or, if initiated, may be kept in abeyance.

8. It is seen that while Circular dated 19.11.1990 is a general Circular, the internal Note dated 16.02.2010 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant relates to a particular disciplinary enquiry proceedings for major penalty against another official, Sh. D.K. Srivasatava, Dy. Legal Adviser, CBI. In both these cases emphasis had been laid upon the same set of facts and allegations being involved in both the prosecution through the criminal case as well as the simultaneous departmental action initiated. It was stated that any contradictions which may emerge during disciplinary enquiry may benefit the accused in the criminal case, and, therefore, it had been suggested that it would be appropriate to expedite the criminal case, and the disciplinary enquiry can be stayed till the examination of the material witnesses in the criminal case is over.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents cited the judgment delivered by the Honble Apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya AISLJ (IX)-2011 (3) 127 and the orders of the Honble Delhi High Court dated 23.08.2004 in n Writ Petition (Civil) No.565/2004, 593/2004 and 2236/2004 in Jainder Singh Tomar and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. as well as the CBI internal Circular No.3A/2007 dated 16.7.2007. The Honble Apex Court had in paragraph-9 of the judgment cited (supra) held as follows:-