Judgment:
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner, in this application has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the trial in the criminal case pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. A charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 on 30-11-1989. The said charge-sheet is contained in Annexure-1 to this writ application. On 16-9-1991, an inquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed a title suit being No. 46 of 1992 in the Court of the Munsif, Dhanbad and also filed a petition for injunction which was rejected by an order dated 22-12-1992. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal being an Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 1993 in the Court of the District Judge, Dhanbad. By order dated 10-6-1993, the District Judge also rejected the prayer of the petitioner for stay of the departmental proceeding. On 27-10-1989, respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, allegedly issued an order of sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
4. It is admitted that the first information report (F.I.R) was lodged against the petitioner by an Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/Racnhi, and a charge-sheet as against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ application was issued on 31-10-1989 and the petitioner was since directed to appear before the inquiry officer.
5. Mr. K. Bahadur, learned Counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in view of the fact that the article of charges pending inquiry in the departmental proceeding as also the charges in the criminal case being identical the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has relied upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in P.J. Sunderrajan and Anr. v. Unit Trust of India and Anr. reported in 1993 (1) LLJ 168.
6. The petitioner has not stated as to whether the title suit filed by him is still pending or not. Admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner for injunction was dismissed. The petitioner's appeals against the afore mentioned order has also been dismissed. The only remedy available to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case was, therefore, to file a civil revision application before this Court against the appellate order. However, without taking recourse to the said remedy by reason of this writ application the petitioner intends to re-agitate the said matter which has attained finality and operates res judicata as against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 1989.Criminal case against the petitioner was also initiated in the year 1989.The said departmental proceeding is thus pending for a long time. In this situation, in our opinion, discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by us. In P.J. Sunder Rajan's case(supra), the Supreme Court appears to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The said decision is not a binding precedent within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Evidently, the Supreme Court passed the said order in view of the fact that many witnesses had already been examined in the criminal case and the trial Court was expected to complete the trial within three months.
7. Further, this Court recenting in CWJC No. 1794 of 1993 (R) Bikram Purti and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., has held in a can of this nature that no legal right exists in the petitioner to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It may be noticed that in Udneshwar Prasad and Ors. v. H.S.C.L. 1982 BBCJ 482, a learned single Judge of this Court upon taking into consideration various decision, inter alia, held that even in such a case, this Court should not exercise its revisisonal jurisdiction. In the case in hand, if a writ is issued, the same will amount to interference with the order passed by the competent civil court, although the petitioner has not prayed for quashing of the said order. Prayer for injuction having been recjected by the learned Munsif, as also the District Judge, the same has attained finality and thus the said order operates as res judicata as against the petitioner.
8. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. This application is accordingly dismissed.
Narayan Roy, J.
9. I agree.