Allahabad High Court
Gopal Narain Shukla vs Asst. General Manager Region-1 S.B.I. ... on 24 February, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7737 of 2005 Petitioner :- Gopal Narain Shukla Respondent :- Asst. General Manager Region-1 S.B.I. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- I.P. Srivastava,Kedar Nath Mishra,S.C. Tripathi,Sharad Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi,S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against show cause notice dated 13.06.2003, order passed by General Manager, Disciplinary Authority dated 21.08.2003 and Appellate Order dated 30.12.2004, Annexures-35, 37 and 41 of writ petition whereby punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon petitioner and recovery of excess amount paid to petitioner from his gratuity which is to the extent of Rs.5,50,375/- in view of loss sustained by Bank.
3. Counsel for petitioner submitted that a FIR was lodged against petitioner at P.S.Belipar, District-Gorakhpur registered as Case Crime No.445 of 2012 under Sections-467, 468, 419, 420, 409 IPC and that being so no departmental enquiry could have been conducted and no proceedings could have been initiated against petitioner till criminal case is finally decided.
4. It is evident that departmental enquiry is for different charge and criminal proceedings are for different proceedings. Departmental enquiry is with respect to misconduct while criminal proceedings is for offences committed under provisions of Indian Penal Code. Submission of counsel for appellant that it is not open for respondents to proceed to hold a departmental inquiry when criminal proceedings are already pending, is wholly misconceived. Mere pendency of criminal case is not a bar for holding and continuing departmental inquiry.
5. It is now well settled that departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with criminal proceedings and there is no bar as such therein. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another, (1999) 3 SCC 679, Court has held that departmental as well as criminal, both proceedings, can go on simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously. The question as to whether during the pendency of criminal proceeding, the departmental proceeding should be stayed depends upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
6. In Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager I.O.C. JT 2005 (8) SC 425, Court said that procedure followed in both the cases as well as subject matter of departmental enquiry and criminal proceeding has different scope and it cannot not be said that when a criminal proceeding is going on a particular criminal charge, in that regard, the departmental proceeding cannot be allowed to proceed. The same view has been reiterated subsequently, in Chairman/ Managing Director TNCS Corporation Ltd. & others Vs. K. Meerabai JT 2006 (1) SC 444, Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce AIR 2007 SC 199 and Union of India & others Vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat 2008 (4) SCC 1.
7. Referring to Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), Court in Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad & another Vs. P. Kata Rao, JT 2008 (4) SC 577, observed that the legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts, the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceeding and in a criminal proceeding simultaneously has been deviated from. It it also said that the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), though has remained unshaken but its applicability has been found to be dependent on the facts and situations obtained in each case.
8. Similarly, in case of Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. Vs. NOIDA & others, JT 2007 (2) SC 620, Court has reproduced following conclusions deducible from various judgments as noticed in para 22 of the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), namely :
"(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 involved 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 chargesheet.
(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."
9. A similar view has also been taken in Indian Overseas Bank Vs. P. Ganesan & others, AIR 2008 SC 553, and Court has held where a prayer is made that so long as criminal proceedings are going on, departmental proceeding may not be proceeded, Court must record a finding that non grant of stay of departmental proceeding would not only prejudice delinquent officer, but matter also involves a complicated question of law. Nothing of that sort has been shown by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case in hand.
10. Following the aforesaid authorities, this Court has taken a similar view in Priti Chauhan vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (9) ADJ 388.
11. In view of law laid down in aforesaid authorities, submission that departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings could not have gone simultaneously, is misconceived.
12. In view thereof, I find no reason to interfere in impugned orders.
13. No other point has been raised.
14. Dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date : 24.02.2020 Manish Himwan