Ashwini Charan Singh Yadav v. Union of India & others
Case Details
- 1 - wp1380.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 OF 2024 Ashwini Charan Singh Yadav .. Petitioner versus Union of India & others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2024 Shashikant Ganpat Surwade .. Petitioner versus Union of India & others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1396 OF 2024 Sunil Bhaulal Potdar .. Petitioner versus Union of India & others .. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni and Mrs. Sudha Chintamani, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in respective petitions. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 29th FEBRUARY, 2024. ORDER : ( Per R. M. Joshi, J.) - 2 - wp1380.24.odt 1. Petitioners, in these Petitions, seek stay of Departmental Enquiry bearing Nos. BSL/153/DE-06/2023, BSL/153/DE-05/2023 and BSL/153/DE-07/2023 respectively pending against them before Respondent No. 5 till completion of hearing, evidence and decision in Regular Criminal Case instituted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal arising out C.R. No. 8/2024, for the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 2. The Petitioners are serving as Constables in Railway Protection Force at Bhusawal Loco within the jurisdiction of Bhusawal Division under the control of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and under overall control of Respondent No. 1. According to the Petitioners, along with other accused, they were charged in Crime No. 8/2023 at Railways Protection Force (R.P.F.) Station, Bhusawal (Loco) for the offence as stated above at the behest of Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav. It is alleged that accused persons have committed theft of copper wire weighing 1604.5 Kgs having net value worth of Rs. 7,84,227.50/- belonging to the Railways with the help of RPF personnel including the Petitioners. There is allegation that the accused persons with the help of RPF personnel, covered the CCTV - 3 - wp1380.24.odt camera in the Main Gate, Cycle Stand, Workshop and Strong Room of POH premises during Diwali festival, for commission of theft. Initially, offence came to be registered against unknown persons and during the investigation, name of the co-accused Rahul More surfaced and after his arrest, the involvement of RPF personnel was revealed. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the registration of Crime, Petitioners were arrested and remanded to RPF custody and later on were sent in judicial custody and ultimately they were released on bail on 10th January, 2024 by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal. Petitioners claim that simultaneously the department conducted preliminary enquiry and fact finding report is obtained. Respondent No. 4 served a departmental charge-sheet dated 15th January, 2024 on the Petitioners and called upon them to explain the charges leveled against them. It is the case of the Petitioners that on the same set of allegations as contained in the criminal proceeding i.e. on the same set of witnesses and evidence, the Departmental Enquiry is sought to be conducted. It is claimed by the Petitioners that prejudice will be caused to their defence in the criminal proceeding if the Departmental Enquiry is allowed to be continued against them. Mainly, on these amongst other grounds, stay to the Departmental Enquiry is asked. - 4 - wp1380.24.odt 3. Respondents filed the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. H. Shrinivasa Rao, DSC(RPF), Divisional Security Commissioner (RPF), Central Railway, Bhusawal Division, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, opposing the Petitions. It is the case of the Respondents that having regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Departmental Enquiry and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously and there is no bar in conducting them at the same time. It is also claimed that the case does not involve complicated questions of fact and law and as such, no case is made out for stay of the Departmental Enquiry as sought for. 4. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the defence of the Petitioners in criminal case would prejudice if they are required to participate in the Departmental Enquiry. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on following judgments : i) ii) iii) iv)