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