Judgment:
R.S. Mongia, J.
1. The petitioner was given a charge-sheet dated May 13, 1996 and another charge-sheet served on him was dated December 21, 1996. To the first charge-sheet, the petitioner has filed the reply. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was also lodged by the respondent in which the allegations inter alia were the same as contained in the charge-sheet dated December 21, 1996. Reply to the charge-sheet dated December 21, 1996 has not been filed though only 15 days' time was granted. But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner reply could not be filed as the requisite record asked for by the petitioner for filing the reply has not been made available. It is admitted by both the parties that the challan in the criminal case has since been submitted to the trial Court and the trial is likely to commence soon.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the enquiry proceedings should be stayed till the petitioner makes a statement under Section 313, Cr.PC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the enquiry proceedings are not stayed, the petitioner will have to disclose his defence. It cannot be realised as to how long trial in the criminal case would last and would be concluded. Learned counsel for the respondents cited State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1997-I-LLJ-746) judgment of the Apex Court in which it was observed at P.751 that '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 misdemeanor 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.' Apart from what has been observed by the Apex Court, it is by now well settled that the degree of proof that is required under the criminal law and in the domestic enquiry is totally different. Strict provisions of Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiry whereas these do apply in criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings the guilt has to be brought home beyond any shadow of doubt whereas it may not be so in case of a domestic enquiry. The scope as observed above, is totally different. At one or the other time, the delinquent officer has to disclose his defence. The statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C are already recorded during investigation which are the part of the challan. It is rather advantageous to delinquent officer to know what would be the prosecution case as he has already got the copies of the statements of the witnesses who are likely to appear in the trial in the criminal case. Consequently, we find that it will not be in the interest of the administration to stay the domestic enquiry. Rather the domestic enquiry should be expeditiously concluded. While dismissing the writ petition, we direct the respondents to conclude the domestic enquiry within six months of the petitioner's filing reply. Petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry and in case he does not, even then the domestic enquiry has become necessary after six months of the filing of the reply or within six months of the last date of the extended period for filing the reply, if any.