{"id":40221,"date":"1996-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996"},"modified":"2019-02-04T16:02:47","modified_gmt":"2019-02-04T10:32:47","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B J Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K. Venkataswami<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI B.K. MEENA &amp; OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t27\/09\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K. VENKATASWAMI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n     B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.  Heard counsel  for\t the  parties.\tThis<br \/>\nappeal\tis  preferred  against\tthe  order  of\tthe  Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal,  Jaipur    staying  the  department<br \/>\nenquiry against\t the respondent\t till the  conclusion of the<br \/>\ncriminal trial against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent is a member of the Indian Administrative<br \/>\nService belonging  to the Rajasthan cadre. He was working as<br \/>\nAdditional  Collector,\t Development-cum-Project   Director,<br \/>\nDistrict Rural\tDevelopment Agency (DRDA), Jaipur during the<br \/>\nyear  1989.  He\t was  transferred  from\t the  said  post  on<br \/>\n21.10.89. On 8.12.89, the successor to the respondent lodged<br \/>\na FIR  (No. 346\t of 89)\t against the respondent in Police in<br \/>\nPolice\tStation\t  Bani\tPark,  Jaipur  inter  alia  alleging<br \/>\nmisappropriation of  public funds  by the  respondent to the<br \/>\ntune of\t Rs. 1.05  crores. The Anti-Corruption Department of<br \/>\nthe State  of Rajasthan\t investigated into  the said offence<br \/>\nand found  that the  respondent was  involved in the offence<br \/>\nand accordingly\t registered FIR\t No10\/90 dated\t12.3.90.  On<br \/>\n22.5.90, the  respondent was  placed under  suspension.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent was\tarrested on  26.3.90 and remained in custody<br \/>\ntill 10th August, 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On\t 31.3.92,  the\tState  of  Rajasthan  requested\t the<br \/>\nGovernment of  India for  grant of  sanction for prosecuting<br \/>\nthe respondent\tunder Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On<br \/>\n9.9.92, the Government of India, the Government of Rajasthan<br \/>\nto initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.<br \/>\nAccordingly, on\t 13.10.92, the\tState Government  issued the<br \/>\nmemo of\t charges accompanies  by  articles  of\tcharges.  On<br \/>\n9.2.93,\t the  respondent  submitted  his  written  statement<br \/>\n(running into  90 pages) in reply to the charges served upon<br \/>\nhim.  At   our\tdirection,   the  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent has\tfiled a\t copy of the said written statement.<br \/>\nIt purports  to be  in response to the memo of charges dated<br \/>\n13.10.92  communicated\tto  him.  Though  at  the  end,\t the<br \/>\nrespondent reserves his &#8220;right to add new points when and if<br \/>\nthe documents  as mentioned  above are\tfurnished tome or if<br \/>\nthe  investigating   agency  furnish   other  documents\t  of<br \/>\nadditional points not disclosed to me till now&#8221;, the written<br \/>\nstatement is  a detailed  rebuttal  of\tthe  charges  framed<br \/>\nagainst the  respondent. The respondent, no doubt, says that<br \/>\nsince all  the document\t were  not  furnished  to  him,,  he<br \/>\nproposes to  file a  fuller statement  after receiving those<br \/>\ndocuments but that does not mean that the respondent has not<br \/>\nput forward  his case in reply to the charges framed against<br \/>\nhim. Putting  forward his  case in  reply to memo of charges<br \/>\ncannot but mean putting forward his defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On 13.4.93,  the respondent  filed O.A.No.212  of\t1993<br \/>\nbefore\t the   Central\t Administrative\t  Tribunal,   Jaipur<br \/>\nchallenging the\t various orders passed against him including<br \/>\nthe memo of charges.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On 15.5.93,  charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the<br \/>\nChief Judicial\tMagistrate, Jaipur,  against the  respondent<br \/>\nand cognizance thereof taken by the learned  C.J.M.\n<\/p>\n<p>     At\t the   instance\t of   the  respondent,\tthe  Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal\t issued an  order on  4.8.93 staying<br \/>\nthe disciplinary  proceedings against  respondent. The State<br \/>\nof  Rajasthan\tthereupon  re-instated\t the  respondent  in<br \/>\nservice, revoking  the order  of suspension pending enquiry.<br \/>\nThe  respondent\t  amended  his\t O.A.  requesting  that\t the<br \/>\ndisciplinary enquiry  against  him  be\tstayed\tpending\t the<br \/>\ncriminal trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>     When  the\t Original  Application\tcame  up  for  final<br \/>\nhearing, the  only ground  urged by  the respondent was that<br \/>\nthe departmental proceedings be not allowed to go on so long<br \/>\nas the\tcriminal proceedings are pending against him. It was<br \/>\nopposed by  the State  of Rajasthan  stating inter alia that<br \/>\ninasmuch as  the respondent  has filed\ta  detailed  written<br \/>\nstatement of  defence on  9.2.93 (in  response\tto  memo  of<br \/>\ncharges framed\tagainst him)  and because the respondent has<br \/>\ndisclosed  all\t possible  defences   in  the  said  written<br \/>\nstatement, there  is no\t occasion or warrant for staying the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  Tribunal   found  that  the  charge-sheet  in\t the<br \/>\ncriminal case  and the\tmemo of\t charges in the disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings are\t based upon  same facts\t and allegations. It<br \/>\nrejected the State&#8217;s plea that the respondent having already<br \/>\ndisclosed his  defence, will not be prejudiced in any manner<br \/>\nby proceeding  with the\t disciplinary enquiry.\tThe Tribunal<br \/>\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;We cannot\t say at\t this stage what<br \/>\n     will  emerge   during  the\t enquiry<br \/>\n     proceedings  after\t examination  of<br \/>\n     the  evidence.  The  applicant  may<br \/>\n     well have\tto put\tforward\t further<br \/>\n     defence  as   and\t when\tmaterial<br \/>\n     against  him   emerges  during  the<br \/>\n     enquiry proceedings  and disclosure<br \/>\n     of his  defence at that stage could<br \/>\n     well prejudice  his defence  in the<br \/>\n     criminal trial.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Purporting to  follow the\tdecision of  this  Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1659348\/\">Kusheshwar Dubey  v. M\/s  Bharat  Coking  Coal\tLimited\t and<br \/>\nOthers<\/a> [A.I.R.\t1988 S.C.  2118 =  1988 (4)  S.C.C. 31], the<br \/>\nTribunal  allowed  the\trespondent&#8217;s  plea  and\t stayed\t the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings pending the criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is<br \/>\nunsustainable both  in law  and on the facts of the case. <a href=\"\/doc\/1640660\/\">In<br \/>\nS.A. Venkataraman  v. Union  of India  Another<\/a> [A.I.R.\t1954<br \/>\nS.C.  375],   the  petitioner\ttherein\t was   subjected  to<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings  in  the  first  instance  and\t was<br \/>\ndismissed from\tservice on  17th September,  1953.  On\t23rd<br \/>\nFebruary, 1954,\t the police submitted a charge-sheet against<br \/>\nthe petitioner therein in a Criminal Court in respect of the<br \/>\nvery same  charges. The petitioner challenged the initiation<br \/>\nof criminal  proceedings on  the ground\t that it amounts  to<br \/>\nputting him  in double jeopardy within the meaning of Clause<br \/>\n(2)  of\t  Article  20\tof  the\t Constitution  of  India.  A<br \/>\nConstitution Bench  of this  Court rejected  the  said\tplea<br \/>\nholding that  there is\tno  legal  rejected  the  said\tplea<br \/>\nholding that  there is\tno legal objection to the initiation<br \/>\nor continuation\t of criminal  proceedings merely  because he<br \/>\nwas punished earlier in disciplinary proceedings. It is thus<br \/>\nclear &#8211;\t and the  proposition is  not  disputed\t by  Mr.  K.<br \/>\nMadhava Reddy,\tlearned counsel for the respondent &#8211; that in<br \/>\nlaw there  is no  bar to, or prohibition against, initiating<br \/>\nsimultaneous   criminal\t   proceedings\t  and\t disclipnary<br \/>\nproceedings. Indeed  not only  the said two proceedings, but<br \/>\nif found  necessary, even  a civil  suit  can  also  proceed<br \/>\nsimultaneously. Mr.  Madhava Reddy, however, submits that as<br \/>\nheld by\t this Court in certain later decisions, it would not<br \/>\nbe desirable  or appropriate  to proceed simultaneously with<br \/>\nthe   criminal\t proceedings   as   well   as\tdisciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1301089\/\">In Delhi  Cloth and  General Mills\t Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan<\/a><br \/>\n[1960 (3)  S.C.R. 227],\t it was\t held that the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice do not require that the employer should wait<br \/>\nfor  the  decision  of\tthe  criminal  court  before  taking<br \/>\ndisciplinary action  against the employee. At the same time,<br \/>\nthe Court  observed : &#8220;We may, however, add that if the case<br \/>\nis of  a grave\tnature or involves questions of fact or law,<br \/>\nwhich are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer<br \/>\nto await  the decision\tof the\ttrial  court,  so  that\t the<br \/>\ndefence of  the employee  in the  criminal case\t may not  be<br \/>\nprejudiced.&#8221; <a href=\"\/doc\/1888800\/\">In\t Tata Oil  Mills Company  Limited v. Workmen<\/a><br \/>\n[1964 (7) S.C.R. 555], it was observed following D.C.M. that<br \/>\n:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;It  is   desirable  that\t if  the<br \/>\n     incident giving  rise to  a  charge<br \/>\n     framed  against   a  workman  in  a<br \/>\n     domestic enquiry  is being tried in<br \/>\n     a\tcriminal   court,  the\temployer<br \/>\n     should stay  the  domestic\t enquiry<br \/>\n     pending the   final disposal of the<br \/>\n     criminal\tcase.\t It   would   be<br \/>\n     particularly appropriate  to  adopt<br \/>\n     such  a  course  where  the  charge<br \/>\n     against the  workman is  of a grave<br \/>\n     character, because\t in such a case,<br \/>\n     it would  be unfair  to compel  the<br \/>\n     workman  to  disclose  the\t defence<br \/>\n     which  he\t may  take   before  the<br \/>\n     criminal court.  But  to  say  that<br \/>\n     domestic enquiries\t may  be  stayed<br \/>\n     pending  criminal\t trial\tis  very<br \/>\n     different from  saying   that if an<br \/>\n     employer\tproceeds   with\t     the<br \/>\n     domestic  enquiry\tinspite\t of  the<br \/>\n     fact that\tthe  criminal  trial  is<br \/>\n     pending,  the   enquiry  for   that<br \/>\n     reason alone  is vitiated\tand  the<br \/>\n     conclusion\t reached   in  such   an<br \/>\n     enquiry is\t either bad  in\t law  or<br \/>\n     malafide.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/1694911\/\">In Janq  Bahadur Singh  v. Baij  Nath Tiwari<\/a>  [1969 (1)<br \/>\nS.C.R. 134],  the contention that initiation of disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings during   the pendency of criminal proceedings on<br \/>\nthe same  facts amounts\t to contempt  of court was rejected.<br \/>\nAfter considering  the ratio  of these three decisions, this<br \/>\nCourt held in Kusheshwar Dubey :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The view\texpressed in  the  these<br \/>\n     cases of this Court seem to support<br \/>\n     the position that while there could<br \/>\n     be no  legal bar  for  simultaneous<br \/>\n     proceedings being taken, yet, there<br \/>\n     may be  cases  where  it  would  be<br \/>\n     appropriate to  defer  disciplinary<br \/>\n     proceedings  awaiting  disposal  of<br \/>\n     the criminal  case. In  the  latter<br \/>\n     class of cases it would open to the<br \/>\n     delinquent employee to seek such an<br \/>\n     order of  stay or\tinjunction  from<br \/>\n     the Court. Whether in the facts and<br \/>\n     circumstances of  a particular case<br \/>\n     there should  or should not be such<br \/>\n     simultaneity  of\tthe  proceedings<br \/>\n     would   then    receive\tjudicial<br \/>\n     consideration and\tthe  court  will<br \/>\n     decide in\tthe given  circumstances<br \/>\n     of a  particular as  to whether the<br \/>\n     disciplinary proceedings  should be<br \/>\n     interdicted,    pending\tcriminal<br \/>\n     trial. As we have\ta already stated<br \/>\n     that it  is  neither  possible  nor<br \/>\n     advisable\tto  evolve  a  hard  and<br \/>\n     fast, strait-jacket  formula  valid<br \/>\n     for  all\tcases  and   of\t general<br \/>\n     application without  regard to  the<br \/>\n     particularities of\t the  individual<br \/>\n     situation. For  the disposal of the<br \/>\n     present case,  we do  not think  it<br \/>\n     necessary\tto  say\t anything  more,<br \/>\n     particularly when\twe do not intend<br \/>\n     to lay down any general guideline.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     In the  instant case,  the criminal<br \/>\n     action   and    the    disciplinary<br \/>\n     proceedings  are  ground  upon  the<br \/>\n     same set  of facts.  We are  of the<br \/>\n     view    that    the    disciplinary<br \/>\n     proceedings should have been stayed<br \/>\n     and the High Court was not right in<br \/>\n     interfering with  the trial court&#8217;s<br \/>\n     order of  injunction which had been<br \/>\n     affirmed in appeal.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It would  be evident from the above decisions that each<br \/>\nof them\t starts with the indisputable proposition that there<br \/>\nis no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously<br \/>\nand then  say that  in certain\tsituations, it\tmay  not  be<br \/>\n&#8216;desirable&#8217;, &#8216;advisable&#8217;  or &#8216;appropriate&#8217;  to proceed\twith<br \/>\nthe disciplinary  enquiry when a criminal case is pending on<br \/>\nidentical charges.  The staying of disciplinary proceedings,<br \/>\nit is  emphasised, is  a matter disciplinary proceedings, it<br \/>\nis emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to<br \/>\nthe facts  and circumstances of a given case ad that no hard<br \/>\nand fat rules can enunciated in that behalf. The only ground<br \/>\nsuggested in  the above\t questions as  constitution a  valid<br \/>\nground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is &#8220;that the<br \/>\ndefence of  the employee  in the  criminal case\t may not  be<br \/>\nprejudiced.&#8221; This  ground has,\thowever, been  hedged in  by<br \/>\nproviding further  that this  may be  done in cases of grave<br \/>\nnature\tinvolving   questions  of   fact  and  law.  In\t our<br \/>\nrespectful opinion,  it means that not only the charges must<br \/>\nbe  grave   but\t that  the  case  must\tinvolve\t complicated<br \/>\nquestions  of\tlaw  and   fact.  Moreover,  &#8216;advisability&#8217;,<br \/>\n&#8216;desirability&#8217; or &#8216;propriety&#8217;, as the case may be, has to be<br \/>\ndetermined in  each case  taking into  consideration all the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in<br \/>\nD.C.M. and Tata Oil Mills is not also an invariable rule. It<br \/>\nis only a factor which will go into the scales while judging<br \/>\nthe advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings. One of the contending consideration is that the<br \/>\ndisciplinary enquiry  cannot be\t &#8211; and should not be delayed<br \/>\nunduly. So  far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well-<br \/>\nknown that  they drag  on endlessly  where high officials or<br \/>\npersons holding\t high  public  offices\tinvolved.  They\t get<br \/>\nbogged down  on one  or the  other ground.  They hardly ever<br \/>\nreach a\t prompt conclusion.  That is  the reality inspite of<br \/>\nrepeated advice\t and admonitions  from this  Court and\t the<br \/>\nHigh Courts.  If a  criminal case is unduly delayed that may<br \/>\nitself\tbe   a\tgood   ground  for   going  ahead  with\t the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  enquiry\teven   where   the\tdisciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interests<br \/>\nof administration   and\t good government  demand that  these<br \/>\nproceedings  are   concluded  expeditiously.   It  must\t  be<br \/>\nremembered that\t interests of administration demand that the<br \/>\nundesirable elements  are  thrown  out\tand  any  charge  of<br \/>\nmisdemeanor is\tenquired  into\tpromptly.  The\tdisciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to<br \/>\nkeep the  administrative machinery  unsullied by getting rid<br \/>\nof bad\telements.   The interest  of the  delinquent officer<br \/>\nalso  lies  in\ta  prompt  conclusion  of  the\tdisciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings. If\t he is not guilty of the charges, his honour<br \/>\nshould be  vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if<br \/>\nhe is  guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to<br \/>\nlaw. It\t is not\t also in the interest of administration that<br \/>\npersons accused\t of serious  misdemeanor should be continued<br \/>\nin office  indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the<br \/>\nresult of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of<br \/>\nadministration. It  only serves\t the interest  of the guilty<br \/>\nand dishonest.\tWhile it  is not  possible to  enumerate the<br \/>\nvarious factors,  for and  against the\tstay of disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings, we\t found it necessary to emphasise some of the<br \/>\nimportant considerations  in   view of\tthe fact  that\tvery<br \/>\noften the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long<br \/>\nperiods pending\t criminal proceedings.\tStay of disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings cannot  be, and  should  not  be,  a  matter  of<br \/>\ncourse. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be<br \/>\nweighed and  a decision\t  taken\t keeping in view the various<br \/>\nprinciples laid down in the decisions referred to above.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are  quite aware  of  the  fact\t that  not  all\t the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings  are based  upon true charges; some<br \/>\nof them may be unfounded. It may also be that in some cases,<br \/>\ncharges\t are   levelled\t with  oblique\tmotives.  But  these<br \/>\npossibilities do  not detract from the desirability of early<br \/>\nconclusion of  these proceedings.  Indeed, in such cases, it<br \/>\nis all\tthe more in the interest of the charged officer that<br \/>\nthe proceedings\t are expeditiously  concluded. Delay in such<br \/>\ncases really works against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now, let  us examine the facts of the present case. The<br \/>\nmemo of\t charges against  the respondent  was served on him,<br \/>\nalongwith the  articles of  charges, on 13.10.92. On 9.2.93,<br \/>\nhe submitted  a detailed   reply\/defence  statement, running<br \/>\ninto 90\t pages,\t controverting\tthe  allegations    levelled<br \/>\nagainst him.  The challan against him was filed on 15.5.93 n<br \/>\nthe criminal  court. The  respondent promptly applied to the<br \/>\nTribunal and  got the  disciplinary proceedings stayed. They<br \/>\nremain stayed till today. The irregularities alleged against<br \/>\nthe respondent\tare of\tthe year 1989. The conclusion of the<br \/>\ncriminal proceedings  is nowhere  in\tsight.\t(Each  party<br \/>\nblames, the  other  for\t the  said  delay  and\t  we  cannot<br \/>\npronounce upon\tit in  the absence of proper material before<br \/>\nus.) More  than six  years have\t passed by. The charges were<br \/>\nserved\tupon   the  respondent\t about\t4  years  back.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent  has\t  already  disclosed   his  defence  in\t his<br \/>\nelaborate and  detailed statement  filed on 9.2.93. There is<br \/>\nno question  of his  being compelled to disclose his defence<br \/>\nin   the disciplinary  proceedings which would prejudice him<br \/>\nin a  criminal case.  The charges against the respondent are<br \/>\nvery serious.  They pertain  to misappropriation  of  public<br \/>\nfunds to  the\ttune of\t more than  Rupees  one\t crore.\t The<br \/>\nobservation  of\t  the  Tribunal\t  that\tin   the  course  of<br \/>\nexamination of evidence, new material may emerge against the<br \/>\nrespondent and\the may\tbe compelled to disclose his defence<br \/>\nis,   at best,\ta surmise  &#8211; a\tspeculator reason. We cannot<br \/>\naccept it  as valid.  Though the  respondent  was  suspended<br \/>\npending enquiry\t in May, 1990, the order has been revoked in<br \/>\nOctober 1993.  The respondent is continuing in office. It is<br \/>\nin his\tinterest and  in the interest of good administration<br \/>\nthat the  truth or  falsity of\tthe charges  against him  is<br \/>\ndetermined promptly.  To wit,  if he  is not  guilty of\t the<br \/>\ncharges, his  honour should be vindicated early and if he is<br \/>\nguilty, he  should be  dealt with  appropriately without any<br \/>\navoidable delay. The criminal court may decide &#8211; whenever it<br \/>\ndoes &#8211;\twhether the  respondent is  guilty of  the  offences<br \/>\ncharged and if so, what sentence should be imposed upon him.<br \/>\nThe interest  of administration,  however, cannot brooke any<br \/>\ndelay in  disciplinary proceedings for the reasons indicated<br \/>\nhereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>     There is  yet another  reason.  The  approach  and\t the<br \/>\nobjective in   the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings is\taltogether distinct  and different.  In\t the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  proceedings,   the  question  is\twhether\t the<br \/>\nrespondent is\tguilty\tof such\t conduct as  would merit his<br \/>\nremoval from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may<br \/>\nbe,   whereas in  the criminal\tproceedings the\t question is<br \/>\nwhether offences registered against him under the Prevention<br \/>\nof Corruption  Act (and\t the Indian  Penal Code, if any) are<br \/>\nestablished and,  if established,  what sentence  should  be<br \/>\nimposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry<br \/>\nand the\t rules governing  the enquiry  and trial in both the<br \/>\ncasea  are  entirely  distinct\tand  different.\t Staying  of<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings  pending criminal  proceedings,  to<br \/>\nrepeat,\t  should not  be matter\t of course  but a considered<br \/>\ndecision. Even\tif stayed  at one  stage, the  decision\t may<br \/>\nrequire reconsideration\t if the\t criminal case\tgets  unduly<br \/>\ndelayed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We must  make it  clear that  we have  not case, and we<br \/>\nshould not be understood to have cast, any reflection on the<br \/>\nmerits of either party&#8217;s case. What we have said is confined<br \/>\nto  the\t  question  at\tissue,\tviz.,  the  desirability  or<br \/>\nadvisability of staying the disciplinary proceedings against<br \/>\nthe respondent\tpending the criminal proceeding\/case against<br \/>\nhim.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the  above  reasons,  it  must\t be  held  that\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  was\tin  error   in\tstaying\t  the\tdisciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings pending  the criminal  proceedings\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nrespondent. The\t appeal is  accordingly allowed\t with costs.<br \/>\nThe order  of the  Tribunal is\tset aside.  The disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings against the respondent shall go on expeditiously<br \/>\nwithout waiting\t for the result of the criminal proceedings.<br \/>\nThe costs of the appellant are estimated at Rs.<br \/>\n5,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 Author: B J Reddy Bench: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, K. Venkataswami PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI B.K. MEENA &amp; OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/1996 BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K. VENKATASWAMI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-04T10:32:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T10:32:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2965,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-04T10:32:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-04T10:32:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996","datePublished":"1996-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T10:32:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996"},"wordCount":2965,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-04T10:32:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shri-b-k-meena-others-on-27-september-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Shri B.K. Meena &amp; Others on 27 September, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}