But the Inquiry Officer rejected the request and recorded his findings on 10.5.1986 holding the appellant guilty.
The representation was rejected on 19.6.1985 and the appellant was informed that the disciplinary proceedings would be held against him on 1.7.1985.
It was also pointed out that since the appellant had already been acquitted and the prosecution case against the appellant based on the raid and recovery which also companystituted the basis of the departmental proceedings, had number been found to be true, he was entitled to be reinstated in service.
In the meantime, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
While directing reinstatement of the appellant, the High Court gave liberty to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against the appellant after perusing the judgment passed in the criminal case.
These findings were accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and by order dated 7th June 1986, the appellant was dismissed from service.
The Writ Petition was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 26.9.1995 with the finding that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case being based on the same set of facts, departmental proceedings should have been stayed till the result of the criminal case and since in the criminal case the appellant had already been acquitted and the prosecution case was number found established, the respondents companyld number legally refuse reinstatement or the companysequent back wages to the appellant.
On 11th of June, 1985, the appellant made a representation to the Disciplinary Authority denying the allegations made against him in the charge sheet and pleaded that the entire episode was a companycoction.
This judgment was, however, set aside by the Division Bench on 17th September, 1997 in a letters patent appeal filed by the respondents.
10842 of 1985 in the Karnataka High Court for a direction to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry till the companyclusion of the criminal case as the appellants defence was likely to be prejudiced.
On 3rd of February, 1987, judgment in the criminal case was pronounced and the appellant was acquitted with the categorical findings that the prosecution had failed to establish its case.
He prayed that the departmental proceedings initiated against him may be dropped or may, in the alternative, be postponed till the companyclusion of the criminal proceedings against him on the basis of the First Information Report lodged against him at the Police Station on 2.6.1985.
1 is a Govt.
This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court on 19.8.1985 and a direction was issued to the respondents to companysider and dispose of the appellants appeal filed against the order of suspension but liberty was given to the respondents to defer the disciplinary proceedings if it was found expedient so to do.
The order of dismissal passed by the respondents was challenged in a departmental appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 22.7.1987.
It was, at this stage, that the appellant approached the High Court through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of dismissal on various grounds, including that the departmental proceedings based on the same set of facts on which the criminal case was launched against him, ought to have been stayed awaiting the result of the criminal case.
This judgment was companymunicated by the appellant to the respondents on 12.2.1987 with a request that he may be reinstated, but respondents, by their letter dated 3.3.1987, rejected the request on the ground that the appellant had already been dismissed from service on the companypletion of the departmental inquiry which was companyducted independently of the criminal case and, therefore, the judgment passed by the Magistrate was of numberconsequence.
The respondents were informed by a number of letters supported by medical certificates about his illness with a request for staying the departmental proceedings and await the result of the criminal case.
The respondents did number defer the departmental proceedings and companytinued the proceedings which the appellant companyld number attend on account of his ill health and financial difficulties which companypelled him to shift to his home town in Kerala.
The next day, namely, on 4th of June, 1985, a charge sheet was issued proposing a regular departmental inquiry with regard to the recovery of the above articles from his house.
Thereafter, on the same day, a First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station and a criminal case was registered against the appellant, who was placed under suspension on 3.6.1985.
undertaking at Kolar Gold Fields in Karnataka, where the appellant was appointed as a Security Officer on 31.10.1983.
On 2nd of June, 1985, a raid was companyducted by the Superintendent of Police at the house of the appellant from where a mining sponge gold ball weighing 4.5 grams and 1276 grams of gold bearing sand were recovered.
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
Whether departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case launched on the basis of the same set of facts can be companytinued simultaneously is a question which crops up perennially in service matters and has once again arisen in this case in the following cirucmstances.
Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. Respondent No.
