Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajendra Prasad Dayma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 April, 2026
Author: Anand Sharma
Bench: Anand Sharma
[2026:RJ-JD:19616]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 439/2023
Rajendra Prasad Dayma S/o Shri Ramnath Dayma, aged about
53 years, R/o E-2/185, Chhitrakut Yojna, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Deepak Chandak AAAG for Mr.
B.L. Bhati AAG
Mr. Nitesh Mathur AGC with Mr. Ravi
Shankar Advocate
Mr. Samir Shrimali AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 17.04.2026
Date on which judgment was reserved :: 17.04.2026
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement :: 28.04.2026
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the
departmental enquiry initiated against him vide charge-sheet
dated 20.07.2021 or in the alternative for a direction to the
respondents not to proceed with the departmental enquiry during
the pendency of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.
94/2020 registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (2 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was posted as
Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sirohi and in the course
of his official duties, he had conducted an enquiry under Section
57 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 against one
Shri Rajaram, the then Manager of Rohida Gram Sewa Sahkari
Samiti Ltd., District Sirohi, on allegations of misappropriation of
funds. Upon conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner,
by order dated 05.12.2019, held the said Rajaram guilty of
embezzlement to the extent of Rs. 4,99,336.50 out of the alleged
amount and directed recovery of the said amount along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is the case of the
petitioner that the said order was duly communicated to Rajaram
immediately after its passing.
3. Subsequently, after a lapse of about seven months,
Rajaram lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau on
18.06.2020 alleging that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of
Rs. 10,000/- for providing certified copy of order dated
05.12.2019 and other documents. Acting upon the said complaint,
a trap was allegedly laid and FIR No. 94/2020 came to be
registered on 19.06.2020 for offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The criminal case is stated to
be pending trial.
4. Thereafter, the respondents initiated departmental
proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1958’) and issued
charge-sheet dated 20.07.2021. The charges in the departmental
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (3 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
enquiry are founded upon the same allegations which constitute
the subject matter of the aforesaid criminal case.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this
Court contending that continuance of the departmental
proceedings during pendency of the criminal trial would cause
serious prejudice to him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings are based on
identical facts, allegations and evidence. It is submitted that the
complainant, witnesses and documents in both proceedings are
common and the foundation of the charge in both proceedings is
the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. It is
further argued that if the departmental enquiry is allowed to
proceed, the petitioner would be compelled to disclose his
defence, which would seriously prejudice his case in the criminal
trial. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. & Another,(1999) 3 SCC 679 as well as judgment
of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagirath Ram
vs State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
2682/2021 decided on 13.09.2021) to contend that where
both proceedings are based on identical facts and evidence, it is
desirable to stay the departmental enquiry till conclusion of the
criminal case.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
opposed the writ petition and submitted that the writ petition itself
is not maintainable as it seeks to challenge a mere charge-sheet.
It is argued that a charge-sheet does not give rise to a cause of
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (4 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
action and ordinarily the High Court should not interfere at such a
premature stage.
8. It is further contended that there is no legal bar in
proceeding simultaneously with departmental and criminal
proceedings, as both operate in distinct fields with different
standards of proof. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. B.K.
Meena & Others, (1996) 6 SCC 417 and Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan & Others vs T. Srinivas (2004) 7 SCC 442 to
submit that simultaneous proceedings are permissible. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has not even submitted his reply to
the charge-sheet despite opportunities and, therefore, cannot
seek indulgence of this Court.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of record, this court finds that the core question that
arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the departmental enquiry initiated against the
petitioner deserves to be quashed or stayed during the pendency
of the criminal proceedings, or not?.
10. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition against a
charge-sheet is not maintainable as the same does not constitute
an adverse order. However, this rule is not absolute and is subject
to well-recognized exceptions, particularly where continuation of
proceedings would be wholly unjust, oppressive or in violation of
settled legal principles. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs.
B.K. Meena & Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (5 of 14) [CW-439/2023]“14. It would be evident from the above decisions that each
of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is
no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and
then say that in certain situations, it may not be ‘desirable’,
‘advisable’ or ‘appropriate’ to proceed with the disciplinary
enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges.
The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a
matter to be determined having regard to the facts and
circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules
can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested
in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for
staying the disciplinary proceedings is that “the defence of
the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced”.
This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing
further that this may be done in cases of grave nature
involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion,
it means that not only the charges must be grave but that
the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact.
Moreover, ‘advisability’, ‘desirability’ or ‘propriety’, as the
case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The
ground indicated in D.C.M. (1960) 3 SCR 227 and Tata Oil
Mills (1964) 7 SCR 555 is also not an invariable rule. It is
only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the
advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary
proceedings. One of the contending considerations is that the
disciplinary enquiry cannot be — and should not be —
delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is
well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or
persons holding high public offices are involved. They get
bogged down on one or the other ground. They hardly ever
reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of
repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the
High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly delayed that may
itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary
enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held
over at an earlier stage. The interests of administration and
good government demand that these proceedings are
concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that
interests of administration demand that undesirable elements
are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired
into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not
really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative
machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The
interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty
of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest
possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with
promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of
administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour
should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods
awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the
interest of administration. It only serves the interest of the
guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the
various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary
proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the
important considerations in view of the fact that very often
the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods
pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary
proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of
course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be
weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various
principles laid down in the decisions referred to above.”
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (6 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
11. It is equally well settled that there is no absolute legal
bar to the simultaneous continuation of departmental and criminal
proceedings, as both operate in distinct spheres, the former being
governed by service jurisprudence and the latter by penal law.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments,
including Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra) has carved out an
exception that where both proceedings are based on identical and
similar set of facts and the evidence in both cases is common, and
where the charges in the criminal case are of a grave nature
involving complicated questions of fact and law, it would be
desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion
of the criminal case. The consistent ratio emerging from the
aforesaid precedent is that where both the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case arise out of the same set of
facts, and the evidence in both proceedings is substantially
identical, particularly in cases involving serious criminal charges, it
would not be expedient to permit the disciplinary proceedings to
continue simultaneously. The underlying rationale is rooted in
fairness and the need to avoid prejudice to the delinquent
employee. After analysing so many earlier judgments, in the case
of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), following principles were laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
“22. The conclusions which are deducible from various
decisions of this Court referred to above are:
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal
case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their
being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case
are based on identical and similar set of facts and the
charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee
is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (7 of 14) [CW-439/2023]law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is
grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are
involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of
offence, the nature of the case launched against the
employee on the basis of evidence and material collected
against him during investigation or as reflected in the
charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be
considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings
but due regard has to be given to the fact that the
departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is
being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if
they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal
case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude
them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not
guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found
guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that although
there is no inflexible rule, it is desirable to stay departmental
proceedings where the criminal charge is of a grave nature and
involves complicated questions of fact and law. This principle has
been consistently reiterated and refined in subsequent decisions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. It has been
clarified that the gravity of the charge, the nature of evidence, and
the likelihood of prejudice are determinative factors. Thus, where
the foundation of both proceedings is identical, courts must be
cautious in permitting parallel continuation if it would result in
prejudice to the accused employee.
13. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan &
Others vs T. Srinivas (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after
considering the aforesaid cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony
(supra) and State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Others
(supra), has laid down the following observations:
“8. On a reading of M. Paul Anthony case2 it is noted that
there is consensus of judicial opinion on the basic principle
that proceedings in a criminal case and departmental
proceedings can go on simultaneously, however, this Court(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (8 of 14) [CW-439/2023]noticed that certain exceptions have been carved out to the
said basic principle.
9. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena1 this Court held: (SCC
p. 417)“The only ground suggested in the decisions of the Supreme
Court as constituting a valid ground for staying the
disciplinary proceedings is that ‘the defence of the employee
in the criminal case may not be prejudiced’. This ground has,
however, been hedged in by providing further that this may
be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact
and law. It means that not only the charges must be grave
but that the case must involve complicated questions of law
and fact. Moreover, ‘advisability’, ‘desirability’ or ‘propriety’,
as the case may be, of staying the departmental enquiry has
to be determined in each case taking into consideration all
the facts and circumstances of the case. Stay of disciplinary
proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of
course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be
weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various
principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s decisions.”
(emphasis supplied)”
14. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Bhagirath Ram (supra), after analysing the different judgments
of Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held as under:
“19. It is noteworthy that the charge framed in the
memorandum of charges is nothing but iteration or
enunciation of the fact that the petitioner was caught red
handed and is facing the criminal trial for the felony
punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1998.
20. In the opinion of this Court, it will be impracticable for
the department to reach a finding because in a bid to prove
the delinquency, the department will have to summon either
the prosecution witnesses or the complainant, who are also
star witnesses in the criminal trial. The fact that the
petitioner had accepted the illegal gratification will be difficult
nay impossible to be proved in absence of such witnesses
and without the incriminating material which would be lying
in the trial Court. Usually in the cases like the one in hands,
wherein the Anti Corruption Bureau traps an employee, the
witnesses and material belong to and remain in custody of
the investigating agency or in the custody of the Trial Court.
21. The fact that the petitioner had demanded and accepted
the amount from the complainant as bribe is a complicated
question of fact to be determined by the enquiry officer,
particularly when none of the police personnel were present
at the time of the incident. Necessary evidence like voice
recording, the currency notes used/recovered in the trap and
all other evidence are not in possession of the respondents –
they have practically no access to the incriminating evidence.
22. Unless the witnesses are examined – cross-examined
before the Court, it is very difficult to unearth the facts. Such
being the position, there is every likelihood that the erring
officer may get a clean chit in the departmental inquiry in
spite of the fact that there is cogent oral or occular evidence(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (9 of 14) [CW-439/2023]to prove his guilt or offence. Hence, in the opinion of this
Court, continuance of the disciplinary inquiry is not
appropriate.
23. Even from the petitioner’s perspective, if the inquiry is
permitted to go on, there is every likelihood that the
proceedings may be concluded in undue haste being swayed
by the fact that the petitioner has been framed in anti-
corruption case. If he is supposed to disclose his defence in
the departmental proceeding, the prosecution witnesses will
perhaps be premonished or forewarned and they will be on
guard to face cross-examination. If the prosecution succeeds
in its case, and the petitioner is held guilty, the work of the
inquiry officer will be very easy – the respondents can even
invoke powers under Article 311 of the Constitution of India
and take appropriate action. Therefore, it is advisable and
desirable also, to defer the departmental proceedings.”
15. Upon examination of material available on record, this
Court finds that the genesis of criminal proceedings has arisen
from a complaint came to be submitted by one Shri Rajaram
Meghwal, who was then working as former Manager of Gram Seva
Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Rohida, alleging that in connection with the
decision rendered against him by the Office of the Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sirohi under Section 57(2) of the
Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 as well as in relation
to the audit report of the Rohida Society for the year 2013-14 and
other documents pertaining to his tenure, he required certified
copies of the relevant records for the purpose of pursuing his
appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal, Jodhpur. It was averred
that despite submission of applications dated 12.02.2020 and
03.03.2020 before the then Deputy Registrar (the petitioner),
who, instead of furnishing the certified copies, demanded an illegal
gratification of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant further alleged that
upon meeting the petitioner again on 17.06.2020 and reiterating
his request, the demand for bribe was repeated, whereafter he
was constrained to assure arrangement of the said amount. It was
further stated that certain incomplete documents were handed
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (10 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
over to him with an assurance that the remaining documents
would be supplied upon payment of the demanded amount, and a
receipt was obtained from him on his application in this regard.
The complainant asserted that being aggrieved by such illegal
demand, he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau with a request
to take appropriate legal action and to have the Petitioner
apprehended while accepting the bribe. Thereupon, trap
proceedings were conducted by the ACB and on the basis of that,
case was accordingly registered and proceeded further.
16. After having glimpse of the allegations in criminal
complaint, when statement of allegations appended to the
Memorandum and charge sheet dated 20.07.2021 served upon
the petitioner during disciplinary enquiry were perused, the same
would reveal that it was alleged against the petitioner, while
holding the post of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sirohi
as well as additional charge of Liquidator, Apeshwar Credit
Cooperative Society Ltd., Sirohi, during the period from
05.03.2019 to 18.06.2020, a complaint came to be lodged against
him by Rajaram Meghwal before the Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Jaipur on 18.06.2020. In the said complaint, it was alleged that in
connection with the decision passed under Section 57(2) of the
Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 against the
complainant, as well as the audit report of Rohida Society for the
year 2013-14 and other relevant records pertaining to the
complainant’s tenure, the complainant had sought certified copies
of the necessary documents for the purpose of pursuing his appeal
before the Cooperative Tribunal, Jodhpur. It is further alleged that
despite submission of applications dated 12.02.2020 and
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (11 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
03.03.2020 before the petitioner, instead of furnishing the certified
copies in accordance with law, the petitioner demanded illegal
gratification for the same. On account of such allegation and the
alleged acceptance of undue advantage, a criminal case came to
be registered against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
It is further alleged that being a public servant, the petitioner was
under a legal obligation to process the applications submitted by
the complainant and to provide certified copies of the requested
documents on the basis of records available in his office, in
accordance with the applicable rules. However, instead of
discharging his official duties in a lawful manner, the petitioner is
alleged to have demanded and accepted undue advantage,
thereby acting in a manner unbecoming of a public servant. It is
also imputed that on account of the registration of the aforesaid
criminal case by the Anti-Corruption Bureau pursuant to the
complaint of the complainant, the image and reputation of the
department stood tarnished. The petitioner, by allegedly obtaining
illegal gratification and bringing disrepute to the department, is
stated to have acted in contravention of the duties expected of a
public servant and thereby violated Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, rendering himself liable for
disciplinary action.
17. A comparative analysis of the contents of the criminal
complaint submitted before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the
articles of charge framed in the departmental proceedings leaves
no manner of doubt that the genesis of both sets of proceedings is
the same. Both are founded upon the identical incident relating to
the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (12 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
petitioner for providing certified copies of documents sought by
the complainant. The core allegations, the factual foundation, the
list of witnesses, and the documentary evidence proposed to be
relied upon in both proceedings substantially overlap and arise out
of the same transaction. The complainant, the circumstances
leading to the alleged demand and the sequence of events
culminating in the registration of the criminal case constitute the
very basis of the disciplinary action as well. Thus, it is evident that
not only the origin but also the substance and evidentiary
foundation of the criminal prosecution and the departmental
enquiry are common, interlinked and inseparably interlaced.
18. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down in the above
referred precedents to the facts of the present case, it is evident
that the allegations against the petitioner in the departmental
enquiry as well as in the criminal proceedings emanate from the
same incident of alleged demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification. The witnesses, documentary evidence, and the core
factual matrix in both proceedings are substantially identical. The
charge pertains to an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 which is undoubtedly a serious criminal
offence involving penal consequences.
19. In such a situation, if the departmental enquiry is
permitted to proceed simultaneously, the petitioner would be
compelled to disclose his defence at a stage prior to the recording
of evidence in the criminal trial. This would include disclosure of
his line of defence, cross-examination strategy, and production of
defence evidence. Such premature disclosure is likely to seriously
prejudice the petitioner in the criminal proceedings, where the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (13 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
stakes are significantly higher and the consequences more severe,
including conviction and sentence.
20. It is settled preposition that criminal proceedings entail
stricter standards of proof and more serious consequences as
compared to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, where the
defence of the delinquent employee in both proceedings is based
on the same set of facts and evidence, compelling him to disclose
his defence in departmental proceedings at an earlier stage may
result in a situation where the prosecution gains undue advantage
in the criminal trial. This not only causes serious prejudice but also
has the potential to result in miscarriage of justice. Consequently,
in such cases, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit
the departmental proceedings to continue in parallel, at least till
the stage of recording of evidence in the criminal case is
completed.
21. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to quash the
charge-sheet altogether, as the respondents would be entitled to
proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law
upon conclusion of the evidence in criminal trial.
22. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present case falls within the exception
carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, warranting interference
by this Court.
23. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The
respondents are directed to keep the departmental enquiry
initiated against the petitioner pursuant to charge-sheet dated
20.07.2021 in abeyance till conclusion of the evidence in criminal
proceedings arising out of FIR No. 94/2020.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19616] (14 of 14) [CW-439/2023]
24. It is, however, clarified that the respondents shall be at
liberty to proceed with the departmental enquiry in accordance
with law after conclusion of the evidence in criminal case.
25. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:00:07 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 07:18:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)