ORDER
G. Shanthappa, Member (J.)
1. The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Set aside Annexure-A5 dated 27th September, 2004 bearing No. 8/3697 2003 Vig.III.
AND
(ii) Issue further direction to keep the departmental enquiry in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case in the interest of justice and equity.
AND
(iii) Issue such other direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and also award cost of this application.
2. The brief facts of the case are:- The applicant while working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 has carried out certain emergent departmental work in view of the urgency. The respondent filed a criminal case against the applicant at Bangalore vide case No. RC 18(A)/2001. Charge sheet has been filed against him and others under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 468 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge sheet was filed on 28.09.2003. In the charge sheet it was alleged that the applicant along with four other persons entered into criminal conspiracy during the period 1997 to 2000 in the matter of procuring telecom materials for Bidar Telecom, Bidar at exorbitant prices and also caused wrongful loss to the department. The applicant was supplied with list of documents as Annexure-I and list of witnesses as Annexure-II, The respondents also initiated departmental inquiry against the applicant by serving charge memo dated 5.01.2004 under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Along with the charge memo, list of documents and list of witnesses were also supplied. Subsequently, the applicant submitted his representation to the charge memo. Thereafter Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against the applicant. The contention of the applicant is that simultaneous proceedings both criminal and departmental shall not be continued. For that he has submitted a representation dated 6.09.2004 to keep the departmental inquiry pending till the criminal case is closed. Rejecting the representation, the respondents have issued the impugned memorandum dated 27th September, 2004. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the applicant approached this Tribunal challenging the said memorandum on the ground that where circumstances of the case involve complicated question of law both in criminal and departmental proceedings and where documents and list of witnesses are one and the same and if the departmental inquiry is proceeded with the applicant has to disclose his defence which will prejudice his criminal case. In view of Rules 80 and 81 of the P & T Manual, when the criminal case has been filed the departmental inquiry ought to have been stayed. While issuing the impugned order, the respondents have not complied with the said provision. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable and the relief as prayed for shall be granted.
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed a detailed reply admitting the fact of initiation of criminal case as also departmental inquiry against the applicant. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply statement is that the application is premature and there is no cause of action for the applicant to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal at this stage. All that the applicant is expected to do at this stage is to fully co-operate with the Inquiring Authority to hold the mandatory oral inquiry in view of the fact that the applicant has not admitted the charges framed against him. The Inquiring Authority and the Presenting Officer have been appointed vide order dated 12.08.2004 and though the Inquiry Officer is eager to proceed and complete the inquiry, the applicant is not co-operating. In O.A. No. 461/2004 disposed of on 10.12.2004 this Tribunal dismissed the original application seeking similar relief. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant vide memorandum dated 5.01.2004 are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and not P & T Manual Volume-Ill as erroneously averred by the applicant. As per the charge sheet filed in the Court in a criminal case there are 299 documents, 38 witnesses and one material object are listed and in the memorandum of charges dated 5.01.2004 in the departmental proceedings only 60 documents and 29 witnesses are listed. The allegation that disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts is therefore false and is without any basis. As there is no complicated question of fact and law involved in the two proceedings, there is no bar for institution of criminal case and disciplinary proceedings simultaneously. The Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bhagwan Choubey v. Union of India and Anr. ATR 1987(1) CAT 661 (Allahabad Bench) has held the proceedings–departmental and criminal–are entirely different in nature, they operate in different fields and they have different objectives. The scope of inquiry in a criminal trial is to determine whether an offence against law of the land has taken place and if so, to punish the person who has been guilty of that offence. The scope of a departmental inquiry is to determine whether a public servant has committed a misconduct or delinquency and even if the same constitutes from one point of view, a crime, to consider the question whether the delinquent deserves to be retained in public service or to be reverted or to be reduced in rank or otherwise suitably dealt with for the delinquency concerned. Hence, the applicant has not made out a case for grant of relief. The impugned memorandum is perfect and there is no illegality. The O A, is liable to be dismissed.
4. We heard learned Counsel Mr. M.R. Achar for the applicant and Mr. V.N. Holla, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. While arguing the case learned Counsel for the applicant has cited the judgments of Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited 1999(2) SLR 338 (SC) : 1999(3) SLJ 152 (SC) and also State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena 1996(5) SLR 713 (SC) : 1997(1) SLJ 86 (SC). The learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the same judgments including the order passed this Tribunal in O.A. No. 461/2004 dated 10.12.2004 in the case of M.H. Jaba v. Union of India and Anr.
5. On perusal of the pleadings and after hearing either side the question that arises for our consideration is as to whether this Tribunal can interfere with the impugned order?
6. The admitted facts from either side are that a FIR has been filed against the applicant by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a criminal case in R.C. 18(A)/2001 dated 29.05.2001 and charge sheet No. 02/RK/2003 dated 28.09.2003 under Section 120-B read with 420, 468, 471 read with 468 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Along with the charge sheet the CBI had filed list of 299 documents and list of 38 witnesses. The applicant was also served with the charge memo dated 5.01.2004 along with the list of witnesses and list of documents. In the list of documents 60 documents are relied and in the list of witnesses only 29 witnesses are referred. The charge memo is as follows:
That the said Shri H.P. Nagaralkar, while functioning as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar, during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 resorted to irregular local purchase of various stocked and non-stocked items of stores from four fictitious firms floated by one Sri Satish Kumar viz., M/s Swathi Enterprises, M/s Uma Enterprises, M/s Bhairavaswamy Trading Company and M/s Vasu Engineering Works, Hyderabad; at exorbitant rates; on the basis of quotations/ tenders finalized by other units; without inviting tenders as required; without obtaining Non-Availability Certificates from Circle Telecom Stores Depot, Bangalore, in the case of stocked items; far in excess of the prescribed annual financial limits; in the absence of requirement or provision in any sanctioned estimate; after splitting up the purchases with any sanctioned estimate after splitting up the purchases with the mala fide intention of bringing each bill within his financial powers, in violation of Rule 104 of General Financial Rules, 1963; and irregularly obtained sanction in Form Eng-27 from Shri P. Shanmugarn, the then General Manager (Operations), O/o Chief General Manager Telecom, Karnataka Telecom Circle, Bangalore, for purchases worth Rs. 11,28,569
2. Thus, by his above acts, the said Shri H.P. Nagaralkar committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(1 )(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The applicant submitted his representation to the charge memo denying the charges. When the two proceedings are pending against the applicant, as submitted by the respondents, Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed to investigate into the charges levelled against the applicant in a departmental proceedings. The applicant in view of the prejudice caused by proceeding with the criminal case and the departmental proceedings by the Criminal Court and the departmental authorities respectively submitted his representation dated 6.09.2004 (Annexure-A4) requesting the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (DOT) for staying the disciplinary inquiry initiated pursuant to the memorandum dated 5.01.2004 until conclusion of trial in criminal case Special (CBI) CC No. 1/2004 pending before the Principal Special and Special Judge for CBI cases at Dharwad.
7. On the basis of the representation the Ministry of Communications & IT, DOT has issued the memorandum informing the applicant that there is no bar for institution of departmental and judicial proceedings simultaneously and clarified that the departmental proceedings have been initiated on the memorandum of charges for violation of Conduct Rules, the judicial proceedings have been instituted for criminal offence punishable under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant is prejudiced for taking simultaneous proceedings. In support of his case the applicant relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. R.B. Sharma 2004(6) Supreme Today 227, Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (supra). The respondents have supported the action taken by them under the impugned order by relying on the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 461/2994 dated 10.12.2004.
8. The applicant strongly relied on the issue that there is a complicated question of law and complicated question of documents to be decided by the Court. In view of Rules 80 and 81 of P & T Manual, with the criminal case has been filed, the departmental inquiry ought to have been stayed. The above rules read as follows:
80. Prosecution should be the general rule in all those cases which are found fit to be sent to the Court after investigation and in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial public funds. In such cases, departmental action should not precede prosecution. In other cases, involving less serious offences or involving malpractices of a departmental nature, only departmental action should be taken and the question prosecution should generally not arise.
NOTE I: A case involving of substantial funds would be a case in which the loss exceeds:
(1) Rs. 2,000 in respect of a departmental employee and
(2) the amount of security deposit in the case of an extra-departmental employee. In respect of ex-departmental employee, even in cases involving loss not exceeding the amount of security deposit, the discretion to waive prosecution shall be exercised only if the loss has been made good and there are extenuating circumstances like length of service to justify the exercise of the discretion.
NOTE II: As extra-departmental employees are not full-time Central Government employees, their cases, when a prosecution seems possible and desirable, should be reported to the local Police. If the loss is more than Rs. 2,000 and the case is of some importance, the matter may be reported to the Central Bureau of Investigation immediately the offence is detected to facilitate successful investigation.
NOTE III: In all cases where prosecution has to be launched, a report should be lodged with the Police as soon as the case comes to notice and departmental enquiries should not be held simultaneously with the Police enquiry except to the extent permitted by the Police. The question of taking departmental action in such cases would arise either on completion of police enquiries and other referring the case for departmental action, or after completion of the Court case. If however, it is desired to conduct departmentally enquiries simultaneously with police enquiries or to take departmental action wherever feasible before the case is taken up for prosecution by the police, the matter should be decided after consultation with the Police Authorities.
NOTE IV: In a case where prosecution is not to be launched, departmental action may be taken. The question of advisability of reporting the case to the police for purposes of prosecution if still considered necessary may be examined on the completion of departmental enquiry. There will, however, be no objection to a report being lodged immediately with the police as soon as departmental enquiries are complete, if the nature of the case or other circumstances, viz., case of theft, highway robbery, attacks on employees of the department, the advantages of an immediate house search, the likelihood of the accused absconding etc., require the case to be reported immediately to the police.
NOTE V: (i) In case where there is a difference of opinion between the Police Authorities and the Divisional Officers as to the course of action to be taken the matter may be referred to the Circle Officer which will settle it in consultation with the Inspector General of Police.
(ii) Where the case is reported to the Special Police Establishment and in case of difference of opinion, it is not possible to reach a settlement on the points of difference after a local discussion either at the Divisional Officers level or at the Circle level, the question could be referred to the Directorate for discussion with the C.B.I.
81. Once a charge sheet has been filed in the Court against an employee, the departmental proceedings, if any, initiated against him on the same facts of the case should be kept in abeyance till the finalisation of the criminal proceedings. Similarly, an appeal filed against the penalty imposed in the departmental case should not be disposed of, if in the meantime criminal proceeding on the same facts of the case have been initiated.
We carefully examined whether there is a complicated question to be decided by the Court. In criminal case there are 229 documents and 38 witnesses are referred. Same set of documents and witnesses are referred in the charge memo dated 5.01.2004. In the charge memo only 60 documents and 29 witnesses are referred. In both the proceedings when similar witnesses are referred, we applied the judgment relied on by the applicant in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony’s case. As we have considered the contentions urged by both sides and we do not find any complicated question of law involved and also complicated questions of facts to be decided on the documents referred in both the proceedings. Even if the applicant discloses his defence in the departmental inquiry it will not prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The criminal case is to be decided by the Court in a judicial proceedings on the charges instituted for criminal offence punishable under various sections of IPC and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As stated earlier, the offence in the charge sheet is that the applicant while working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 committed misconducts contravening Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Four other accused were also involved in the criminal case. Accused No. 2 is G. Sathyanarayana, working as Accounts Officer, DOO, Bidar Telecom, Bidar from 1997 to 1999, accused No. 3 is C.H. Satish Kumar, Proprietor of four fictitious firms, accused No. 4 is Sri P. Shanmugam working as General Manager (Operations), Karnataka Telecom Circle, Bangalore, accused No. 5 is Sri M.H. Jaba, working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar Telecom, Bidar, accused No. 6 is Sri Venugopala working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar and Accused No. 7 is Chenshetty Basavaraj working as Sub-Divisional Engineer. It is alleged that applicant who is accused No. 1, A2, A4 to A9 entered into criminal conspiracy with accused No. 3 during the period 1997 to 2000 in the matter of procuring telecom materials for Bidar Telecom, Bidar at exorbitant prices. In the memorandum of charge dated 5.01.2004 the charge is that the applicant was functioning as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 resorted to irregular local purchase of various stocked and non-stocked items of stores from four fictitious firms floated by one Sri Satish Kumar at exorbitant rates on the basis of quotations/tenders finalized by other units; without inviting tenders as required: without obtaining non-availability certificates from Circle Telecom Stores Depot, Bangalore in the case of stocked items; far in excess of the prescribed annual financial limits; in the absence of requirement or provision in sanctioned estimate; after splitting up the purchases with the mala fide intention of bringing each bill within his financial powers, in violation of Rule 104 of General Financial Rules, 1963; and irregularly obtained sanction in form Eng-27 from Sri P. Shanmugam, the then General Manager (Operations) for purchases worth Rs. 11,28,569.
9. We have carefully examined the charges levelled against the applicant in both the proceedings. We find no complicated question of law or facts or interpretation of the documents and anything to be decided with the help of experts. The applicant has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited. Para 22 of the said judgment reads as follows;
(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 that 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 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.
The applicant has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. v R.B. Sharma (supra). Paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment read as follows:
7. It is fairly well settled position in law that on basic principles proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal cases are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common,
8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The 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 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 a criminal case unless a charge in the criminal trial is of 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 a 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 upon own facts and circumstances.
The respondents have relied on the same judgment including the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 461/2004. One Sri M.H. Jaba who is accused No. 5 in the same criminal proceedings had approached this Tribunal challenging the charge memo dated 5.01.2004 of departmental proceedings. The said O.A. was disposed of with an observation that the Tribunal do not find materials so as to hold that the charges are arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. Subsequently, the said applicant filed Review Application No. 14/2005. The same was dismissed on 18.04.2005. The applicant is also placed in a similar position. The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena. Paras 12, 13 and 14 are as follows:
12. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited v. Kushal Bham , it was held that the principles of natural justice do not require that the employer should wait for the decision of the Criminal Court before taking disciplinary action against the employee. At the same time, the Court observed: “We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the Trial Court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced”. In Tata Oil Mills Limited v. Workmen , it was observed, following D.C.M. that:
It is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a Criminal Court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. It would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where the charge against the workman is of a grave character, because in such a case, it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the Criminal Court. But, to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry in spite of the fact that the criminal trial is pending, the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion reached in such an enquiry is either bad in law or mala fide”.
13. In Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari the contention that initiation of disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of criminal proceedings on the same facts amounts to contempt of Court was rejected. After considering the ratio of these three decisions, this Court held in Kusheshwar Dubey, .
The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter case of cases it would be open to the delinquent employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide i n the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, strait-jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. For the disposal of the present case, we do not think it necessary to say anything more, particularly when we do not intend to lay down any general guideline.
In the instant case, the criminal action and the disciplinary proceedings are grounded upon the same set of facts. We are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings should have been stayed and the High Court was not right in interfering with the Trial Court’s order of injunction which had been affirmed in appeal”.
14. 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 emphasized, 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 proceedings 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 also not 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 considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot 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. The Lardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite 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 early stage. The interests of administration and good Government demand that these proceedings 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 possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise 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 cannot 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.
The applicant is also relying on the same judgment particularly Para 16 thereof and submits that the relief as sought by him be granted. Both the sides have not referred to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the same issue. We gain knowledge from the judgment of the Hon’ble- Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Sarvesh Berry 2005 (1) SLR 641 (SC). In the said judgment the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court viz., Capt. M.’ Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited, Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Md. Yousuf Miya 1996(6) SLR 629 (SC) [Para 10] and State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena are referred. The facts in the said case are that two proceedings i.e., one judicial proceedings and another before the departmental inquiry were conducted against the respondent. There was a charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also there was a departmental proceedings against him. When the law is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a latest judgment by following the earlier judicial pronouncements, the Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal and vacated the interim order granted by the Hon’ble High Court. The said judgment is applicable to the present case. Paras 12, 15 and 16 are relevant, which are extracted below:
12. There can be no straight jacket formula as to which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed There may be cases where the trial of the case gets prolonged by the dilatory method adopted by delinquent official. He cannot be permitted to, on one hand, prolong criminal case and at the same time contend that the departmental proceedings should be stayed on the ground that the criminal case is pending.
15. That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing stay of the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of the criminal charge. As noted in Capt. M. Paul Anthony’s case (supra) where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with so that the conclusion can be arrived at an early date. If ultimately the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty the employer may get rid of him at the earliest.
16. Regarding aspects which are related to the criminal case, we do not express any opinion. The appellants are free to continue departmental proceedings, Since the criminal trial has commenced, it would be in the interest of parties to assist the Court for its expeditious disposal.
In the present case when we observe that there is no complicated question of law and the documents to be decided by the Court, no prejudice will be caused to the applicant and accordingly we apply the judgments referred by the respondents. We also apply to this case the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation’s case. We are not inclined to consider the contention of the applicant and the respondents have rightly issued the impugned order dated 27th September, 2004. We do not want to interfere with the impugned since the applicant has not made out a case. Accordingly, we answer the question raised.
10. For the foregoing reasons we are of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a case for grant of relief and hence O.A. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the O.A. No costs.