Criminal proceedings and domestic enquiry
P.ESAKKIMUTHU
(Querist) 09 July 2012
This query is : Resolved
The Supreme Court as well many High Court has ruled that when the charges in the criminal case and domestic enquiry are same, the domestic enquiry must be stayed .In one case FIR alone was lodged and charge sheet not yet prepared by the Police handling the criminal case.I contend that the domestic enquiry must be stayed in as much as a criminal case on the same charges is pending as FIR.Is there any specific judgment that when FIR/Criminal proceedings also is filed/pending, the domestic enquiry dealing with the same charges in the FIR must be stayed
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 09 July 2012
well my opinion is to the contrary, I think both domestic as well as Criminal proceedings can run simultaneously.
pls mention if you have found any judgment which suggests that domestic inquiry has to stop if there are criminal proceedings pending.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 09 July 2012
Bombay High CourtIndian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/30525/
Sumangal Veerbahadur Rana vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 18 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999 (4) BomCR 191, 2000 (84) FLR 654
Author: A Mane
Bench: A Mane, A Palkar
3)the domestic inquiry was vitiated as same was not stayed when requested to by the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The learned Counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Cloth Mills Limited v. Khushal Bhan, .
4)Mr. Lathkar,
learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 raises a preliminary contention that the writ petition shall not be entertained as the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 99 of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations. Mr. Lathkar, further submits that there is no bar for continuation of domestic inquiry simultaneously with the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts. It is submitted that though the petitioner had applied for stay of the departmental inquiry he did not take any steps to approach the Court for staying the departmental proceedings during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. It is also urged that even if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case during the pendency of the domestic inquiry, the power of the authority concerned to continue the inquiry is not taken away nor its discretion is in any way fettered by reason of the acquittal of the petitioner in criminal case.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 09 July 2012
In Kusheshwar Dubey V. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others, AIR 1988 SC 2118 the Supreme Court held that :- “there was no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings being taken against an employee even though there may be cases where it may be appropriate to defer the disciplinary proceedings awaiting the disposal of the criminal case. The Supreme Court held that it was neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast straiacket formula and that in cases where the charge against the employee was of a grave nature and involved complex questions of law and fact, in that event the disciplinary 8
proceedings could be deferred till the decision of the criminal trial.”
ajay sethi
(Expert) 09 July 2012
In the case of State of Rajasthan V. B.K. Mena and others, reported in 1996(6) SCC page-417 the Supreme Court held that: “ 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 proceeding 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. And Tata Oil Mills is not also 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 consideration is that the disciplinary enquiry can not 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 9
conclusion. That is the reality inspite 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 theres proceeding 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 emphasis 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 can not 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.”
Guest
(Expert) 09 July 2012
Domestic inquiry could be kept pending when police investigation is in progress. However, when charge sheet is filed by the police in the court of law, the domestic inquiry proceedings can also be started. However, the domestic inquiry cannot be with the criminal charge, but on account of misconduct having been committed by virtue of such criminal act, as may be prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules or the Conduct and Discipline Rules of Government/PSU organisation concerned.
P.ESAKKIMUTHU
(Querist) 10 July 2012
Thank you all for eliciting on the subject matter. Kindly advise me with citation that Filing of FIR amounts to pending of criminal proceedings.Also advise me with citation whether during the Pendency of FIR(Charge sheet not filed)we can ask for staying the domestic enquiry .The citation is very much needed
