Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

When it is not permissible to stay departmental enquiry pend

When it is not permissible to stay departmental enquiry pending criminal trial?

 
We, therefore, find that the respondent is working in
the office of a quasi judicial authority.  He cannot be allowed to
abuse the process of Court.   The Tribunal fell in grave error in
relying on the solitary paragraph of the judgment in Capt. M.Paul
Anthony (supra) instead of looking into the subsequent judgments
delivered by the Apex Court, clarifying the law laid down in the
case   of  Capt.   M.Paul   Anthony.    Instead   of   reproducing   the
decisions cited by learned A.G.P. for the petitioners, we would
quote following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
“8. …..What is, however, fairly well settled
and was not disputed even before us is that there is
no   legal   bar   to   the   conduct   of   the   disciplinary
proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously.
9.  In A. P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya;
(1997) 2 SCC 699, this Court declared that the
purpose   underlying   departmental   proceedings   is
distinctly   different   from   the   purpose   behind
prosecution of offenders for commission of offences
by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence

is launched for violation of a duty that the offender
owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed
at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.
The difference in the standard of proof and the
application   of   the   rules   of   evidence   to   one   and
inapplicability to the other was also explained and
highlighted only to explain that conceptually the
two operate in different spheres and are intended to
serve distinctly different purposes.
10. The   relatively   recent   decision   of   this
Court   in   Karnataka   SRTC   v.   M.G.   Vittal   Rao
(2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the
principles   that   are   applicable   in   such   situations
succinctly summed up in the following words:
“(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings
to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that
the   disciplinary   proceedings   may   be   stayed
would be to ensure that the defence of the
employee   in   the   criminal   case   may   not   be
prejudiced. But even such grounds would be
available   only   in   cases   involving   complex
questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to
unnecessarily   delay   the   departmental
proceedings.   The   interest   of   the   delinquent
officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a

prompt   conclusion   of   the   disciplinary
proceedings.
(iv)   Departmental   Proceedings   can   go   on
simultaneously   to   the   criminal   trial,   except
where both the proceedings are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common.”

13. …..It   is   also   evident   that   while
seriousness   of   the   charge   leveled   against   the
employees is a consideration, the same is not by
itself   sufficient   unless   the   case   also   involves
complicated questions of law and fact. Even when
the charge is found to be serious and complicated
questions   of   fact   and   law   that   arise   for
consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind
the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be
suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.

16. Suffice it to say that while there is no
legal   bar   to   the   holding   of   the   disciplinary
proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously,
stay   of   disciplinary   proceedings   may   be   an
advisable course in cases where the criminal charge
against the employee is grave and continuance of
the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice
their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of
the   charge   is,   however,   not   by   itself   enough   to

determine the question unless the charge involves
complicated question of law and fact. The Court
examining the question must also keep in mind
that   criminal   trials   get   prolonged   indefinitely
especially where the number of accused arraigned
for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are
the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution.
The   Court,   therefore,   has   to   draw   a   balance
between the need for a fair trial to the accused on
the one hand and the competing demand for an
expeditious conclusion of the on­going disciplinary
proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this
Court to be in the interest of the employees.”
9. We are fully convinced that the law laid down by the
Apex Court as above is clearly applicable in the instant case.  The
impugned decision rendered by the MAT is not legal and correct.
The MAT ought not to have taken lighter view in the case of
corruption by an Accounts Officer like the respondent who was
caught   red   handed   while   accepting   bribe   amount   of   Rs.500/­.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6594/2014
 State of Maharashtra, 
...V E R S U S...
Raju Vishwanath Bhushanwar,


    CORAM:­  A. B. CHAUDHARI &     P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
    DATED :­  SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ185

https://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/when-it-is-not-permissible-to-stay.html



Learning

 1 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate)     25 May 2016

Thank you sir for the informative article, it was useful.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register