ANOOP VERMA vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT on 16 October 2026

1. The applicant in this Original Application (in short O.A.) has challenged impugned memorandums dated 27.08.2026 and 31.08.2026, whereby the applicant has been directed to give his written statement of defence and participate in the departmental inquiry, based on the identical set of evidence, as in the criminal trial, pending before the Court of learned Special Excise Magistrate, Jammu. The applicant is also aggrieved of impugned suspension order dated 06.08.2026 and for non release of pending subsistence allowance from the date of suspension.

2. The grievance of the applicant, as projected by learned counsel is that the applicant is facing trial, in a Court of law on same set of facts and allegations, which is the subject matter of the impugned charge sheet and continuation of departmental proceedings will cause prejudice to the applicant, who would be compelled to disclose his defence in the departmental proceedings and also cause prejudice in his defence in the pending criminal trial. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and another(1999) SCC 679, to buttress his submissions, that simultaneously departmental proceedings cannot proceed, when the applicant is already facing trial on same set of allegations.

3. With these submissions, learned counsel prays for staying the departmental proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3.

4. Admit.

5. Issue notice to respondents. Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned A.A.G. appears and accepts notices on behalf of the respondents.

6. Learned A.A.G. submitted that the applicant is a Government employee and was found in possession of 1.64 grams of heroine (a/w a polythene bag), from his person and total of 4.86 grams (w/o polythene bag) in combine with other co-accused on 09.11.2024, when he was intercepted by the police near parmandal Morh, travelling on a scooty, regarding which FIR bearing No. 145/2024 u/s 8/21/22/29 of NDPS Act at Police Station, Channi Himmat was registered. The act of the applicant has brought disrepute to the Jal Shakti Department and the same would amount to misconduct, which is unbecoming of a Government Servant.

7. It is further submitted that determination of veracity of the allegations with regard to possession of contraband by the criminal court or in departmental proceedings does not involve decision of a complicated question of law and fact.In support of his contentions, learned A.A.G. has relied on the judgement dated 14.11.2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of Akhand Prakash Shahi Vs. Union of India and another in Writ Petition (C) No. 1876 of 2025 c/w Writ Petition (C) No. 3128 of 2023.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.A.G. for the respondents, besides carefully going through the judgements cited at Bar, it is apparent that criminal case in which applicant is facing trial relates to possession of 6.50 gms of heroin which allegation though serious in nature, but does not involve complicated questions of law and fact to stay the departmental proceedings, which cannot be unduly delayed, involving misconduct on the part of the applicant, who was found in possession of narcotic material.

9. In our opinion, no ground for grant of interim relief is made out in favour of the applicant for staying the departmental proceedings, as such, prayer for interim relief is rejected.

10. However, the respondents shall take steps to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. Learned A.A.G. to file detailed reply in the matter with advance copy to learned counsel for the applicant.

12. List on 21.12.2026. Pragya Sahay Saksena Member (A) Sanjeev Gupta Member (J) Arun Kumar ( )