JUDGEMENT
S. M. Subramaniam, J. -
(1.)The call letter sent by the second respondent directing the Writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry in proceedings, dated 8. 6. 2009 is questioned in this Writ Petition.
(2.)The Writ Petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 19. 6. 2009 at 10. 00 a. m. However, the Writ Petitioner even before attending the enquiry proceedings, has chosen to prefer the present Writ Petition questioning the enquiry proceedings on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the Writ Petitioner.
(3.)The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner mainly contended that simultaneous proceedings are impermissible and the disciplinary authorities ought to have waited for the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings are to be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the criminal case.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.