M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The only question that falls for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the continuance of departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is liable to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings pending against him.
2. The petitioner is working as Estate Manager in the respondents-C.C.L. He has been implicated in a criminal case instituted under Section 13(ii) read with 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, being Case No. RC 3(A) of 2004. It is contended by the petitioner that the C.B.I, submitted charge-sheet and charges were framed in the criminal case on 28.9.2004. Thereafter on 27.5.2005 the respondents issued memorandum along with articles of charges in a departmental proceeding. The petitioner filed representation for keeping the proceeding in abeyance on the ground that on the same set of allegations criminal case against him is going on. It is alleged that the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents rather inquiring authority was appointed and the petitioner was directed to report to the Enquiry Officer.
3. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents in continuing the departmental proceeding in spite of the fact that the criminal case is in advance stage, is wholly unjustified and mala fide. Learned Counsel submitted that since the allegations and/or the charges against the petitioner in both the criminal case and departmental proceeding are same and similar, the departmental proceeding is to be stayed. Learned Counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., : (1999)ILLJ1094SC ; State Bank of India and Ors. v. R.B. Sharma, : (2004)IIILLJ528SC and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471.
4. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that there is no bar in continuance of the criminal case and departmental proceeding simultaneously. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471.
5. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Estate Manager Central Coalfields Ltd. Piparwar in the district of Chatra. On the basis of a written complaint dated 12.1.2004 submitted by one Deo Narayan Ganjhu, a criminal case was instituted against him. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 3000/- on 13.1.2004 from the said complainant for getting the compensation amount released in respect of his land acquired by C.C.L. for mining purposes. The allegation was got verified. In course of investigation a trap team was constituted and finally the complaint was found genuine. Copy of the charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. An-nexure-2 is the Memorandum of Charge served upon the petitioner. The allegation in the said memorandum of charge is that the petitioner while posted as Estate Officer at Piparwar during the month of January, 2004, demanded and accepted alleged gratification of Rs. 3000/- from one Deo Narayan Ganjhu. While accepting the said amount, the petitioner was trapped by CBI officials of Ranchi Branch and taken into judicial custody. For commission of such criminal offence, Chairman, C.I.L. gave sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. It is stated that such act of commission and omission violates the provisions of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules which amounts to misconduct.
6. As noticed above the allegations made in criminal case and memorandum of charge in a departmental proceeding are exactly same and similar. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents that the two charges levelled against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding are dissimilar.
7. It is well settled principle of law that proceeding in a criminal case and departmental proceeding can go on simultaneously except where the departmental proceeding and criminal case are based on the same set of fact and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In M. Paul Anthony, (supra), the Supreme Court after considering various decisions observed as under :--
Para 22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are :
(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
8. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others, : (2004)IIILLJ769SC , the fact was that the employee while working as a Clerk was arrested by CBI after the trap and was charged for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the case in this regard was pending trial before the competent Court. During pendency of the said trial, the appellants decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent and a memo framing three charges was issued to the respondent-employee. Considering the said decision of the Management to hold a departmental proceeding pending criminal trial, the Central Administrative Tribunal stayed the disciplinary proceeding till the disposal of the trial and the said order was affirmed by the High Court. In appeal before the Supreme Court the said order was set aside and it was held :
Para 10. From the above it is clear that the advisability desirability or propriety, as the case may be, in regard to a departmental enquiry has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment also lays down that the stay of departmental proceedings cannot be and should not be a matter of course.
Para 11. In the instant case, from the order of the Tribunal as also from the impugned order of the High Court, we do not find that the two forums below have considered the special facts of this case which persuaded them to stay the departmental proceedings. On the contrary, a reading of the two impugned orders indicates that both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if a departmental enquiry had to be stayed in every case where a criminal trial in regard to the same misconduct is pending. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court did take into consideration the seriousness of the charge which pertains to acceptance of illegal gratification and the desirability of continuing the respondent in service in spite of such serious charges levelled against him. This Court in the said case of State of Rajasthan has further observed that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is altogether distinct and different. It held that in the disciplinary proceedings the question is whether the respondent is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be, whereas in the criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The Court in the above case further noted that the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are distinct and different. On that basis, in the case of State of Rajasthan the facts which seem to be almost similar to the facts of this case, held that the Tribunal fell in error in staying the disciplinary proceedings.
9. Recently in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (supra), the Supreme Court considered a case where the respondent was raided by CBI and he having been found to be in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known source of income. After completion of investigation, the CBI filed the charge-sheet and even after sanction of prosecution, there was no noticeable progress for 4 years. The employer initiated a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that continuance of the employee in service of the employer-Corporation could not be in public interest. The High Court at the instance of the employee stayed the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. Reversing the said order, the Supreme Court observed :
Para 8. The purposes of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of the public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of the criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights, punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act,'.) Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act, stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.
10. Notwithstanding the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner both in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceeding are same and similar, but by committing such offence, the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty and also acted in a manner which is unbecoming among the officers of the Company and prejudicial of the image of the Company. Such an act and omission on the part of the petitioner contravenes the provisions of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of the respondents-C.I.L. which amounts to misconduct. In view of the gravity of the charge which is against the public interest, I am of the view that continuance of the departmental proceedings cannot be stayed merely because a criminal case in respect of the charge of demanding bribe is pending against the petitioner, Such type of charges must be considered in a different angle and cannot be fit in a straitjacket formula.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it proper to issue direction of staying the departmental proceeding till disposal of criminal case pending against the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.