Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Sk Mahaboob Basha vs M/O Railways on 7 January, 2025
1
OA.No.221/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.020/00221/2018
ORDER RESERVED ON 17.12.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 07.01.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sk.Mahaboob Basha, S/o late Sk.Ibrahim
Aged 39 years, Occ: Senior Passenger Guard (Group 'C')
O/o the Station Manager, South Central Railway
Guntur Division, Nandyal R.S., Kurnool District. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. by
The General Manager
Rail Nilayam, South Central Railway
Secunderabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager
South Central Railway
Guntur Division
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh State.
3. The Senior Divisional Operations Manager
South Central Railway
Guntur Division
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri M.Venkata Swamy, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN
HYDERABAD, Phone=
ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf
PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f
41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
SANDHYA document
Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.221/2018
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"....to call for the records pertaining to Memorandum No.GNT/T.227/CBI/SKMB/Pass.Gd/GNT/17, dated 08.09.2017 and letter No.GNT/T.227/CBI/SKMB/Pass.Gd/NDL/16, dated 05.03.2018 and declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the disciplinary case initiated vide Memorandum dated 08.09.2017 when Criminal trial is in progress as illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice, and also is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and set aside the said Charge Memorandum dated 08.09.2017 and the letter dated 05.03.2018 and consequently direct the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant initiated in terms of the said Memorandum dated 08.09.2017 or in the alternative direct the respondents to keep the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memorandum dated 08.09.2017 in abeyance till finalization of the criminal trial on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam in CC No.18 of 2017 and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the submissions of the applicant, are as follows:
i. The applicant is currently working as Passenger Guard in Guntur Division of the South Central Railway. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Visakhapatnam Branch, registered a case vide RC 03(A)/2016, against the Applicant, based on a false complaint given by one M.Vijay Kumar, S/o M.Satyanarayana, and M.Satyanarayana himself that the applicant had demanded an amount of Rs.4.00 lakh, as bribe, to provide job of Assistant Loco Pilot to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.221/2018 M.Vijay Kumar, of which Rs.60,000/- was demanded from M.Satyanarayana as advance, with the remaining of Rs.3,40,000/- to be paid, subsequently. When the said M.Satyanarayana asked the applicant about the security for the amount, the applicant asked him to pay the bribe amount by way of Account Payee Cheques for Rs.60,000/- and, subsequently, for Rs.3,40,000/-. It is also alleged that the applicant agreed to give a blank cheque drawn on the Andhra bank and also a blank Promissory Note to M.Satyanarayana to enable M.Satyanarayana to take back the entire amount of Rs.4.00 lakh, by using the said instruments, in case the applicant failed to provide the job of Assistant Loco Pilot to the said M.Vijay Kumar. ii. The complainants, viz., M.Satyanarayana and M.Vijayakumar, approached the CBI, after giving the first instalment of the alleged bribe of Rs.60,000/- to the applicant, on 06.11.2015, by way of a cheque. Based on their complaint, Crime No.RC 03(A)/2016-CBI was registered on 25.02.2016 by the Visakhapatnam Branch of CBI, u/s 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the PC Act, 1988, against the applicant and a trap was laid by the CBI, covering the purported 2nd instalment of the alleged bribe.
iii. The CBI filed the charge sheet u/s 173 of Cr.PC, in the Court of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam, alleging commission of the offences by the applicant, u/s 420 IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. Cognizance was taken, vide C.C.No.18 of 2017, by the Hon'ble Court.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.221/2018 iv. It is alleged by the applicant that, in pursuance of the recommendation given by the CBI, on the very same allegation, which was covered in the above said criminal investigation, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned Memorandum, dated 08.09.2017, initiating Disciplinary Proceedings against him.
v. It is also submitted that the allegation was absurd, as it is impossible for the applicant, who is working as a Guard, in the lower rungs of the Railway Department, to secure appointment in favour of the complainant, when the latter had not even applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, and the appointment is not possible without undergoing a rigorous selection process after the Railway Recruitment Board issues Notification. The complainant, who is an educated unemployed person, shall be aware of it, hence, the complaint was lodged with an ill motive.
vi. The averment in the complaint, that the applicant herein not only insisted on paying the bribe in the form of cheques to be issued in his name, but also gave adequate security for the alleged said bribe amounts by way of a blank cheque and also a Promissory Note, clearly shows that the alleged conduct of the applicant creating evidence against himself to be easily caught, is unnatural and, by twisting the facts, false allegations are made against him.
vii. During the searches at the residence of the applicant, no incriminating material was seized, whereas in the Railway Quarters in occupation of his mother, who is herself wife of a deceased Railway employee/ father of the applicant, some old papers were seized.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.221/2018 viii. According to the applicant, the evidence cited in the Report submitted u/s 173 Cr PC by the Police and in the impugned Charge Memorandum, dated 08.09.2017, is one and the same. Relying upon the very same evidence, which was cited in the criminal Charge Sheet, the impugned Charge Memorandum, dated 08.09.2017, was issued to the applicant. The entire episode, as narrated in the criminal case as well as in the departmental charge memorandum, shows complex questions of facts and law.
ix. The applicant submitted a reply to the impugned Charge Memorandum denying the charges. Thereafter, when the applicant received a Notice for Preliminary Hearing from the Inquiry Officer, he attended the Preliminary Inquiry without even engaging a Defence Counsel. Thereafter, the applicant realized the seriousness of the matter and submitted representation, dated 14.02.2018, to the 3rd respondent with a request to drop the disciplinary proceedings, awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial, as the allegation in both the proceedings is one and the same and the evidence is also the same. If the applicant reveals his defence in the disciplinary case, ahead of the criminal trial, it would cause serious prejudice to his case in the criminal trial that would follow. The applicant was sick during the period from 12.02.2018 to 25.02.2018, hence could not attend the Regular Hearing fixed by the Inquiry Officer on 15.02.2018 and 16.02.2018.
x. The 3rd respondent issued the impugned letter, dated 05.03.2018, rejecting the request of the applicant, by stating that the major penalty Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.221/2018 Charge Memorandum, dated 08.09.2017, was issued for violation of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, based on the letter, dated 15.03.2017, of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam, and also letter, dated 30.08.2017, received from the Senior Deputy General Manager, Secunderabad, categorically mentioning that such action is not by the Railway administration suo moto.
xi. The applicant claims that he is entitled to constitutional protection, as very complex questions of fact and law are involved in the matter of the subject allegations. As admitted by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned letter, dated 05.03.2018, the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated under pressure from external authorities. The Disciplinary Authority put pressure on the applicant to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, pending criminal trial.
xii. According to the applicant, it is clear that the authorities, who are duty-bound to stay the departmental proceedings on their own, have not applied their mind. He is now under pressure from the CBI as well as the Vigilance Organization of the Railways.
3. The grounds set out by the applicant include the following:
i. The action of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty at the instance of CBI when the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts and allegations vis-a-vis the same evidence are in progress and insisting upon the applicant to attend the disciplinary inquiry, by ignoring that complicated questions of law Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.221/2018 and facts involved in the matter, would seriously prejudice the applicant's defence in the trial in the criminal case. ii. The action of the disciplinary authority in not conceding the request of the applicant to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till the criminal trial is over, by stating that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated at the instance of Central Bureau of Investigation, is in violation of the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joint Action Committee of Airlines Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation (2011) 5 SCC 435.
iii. The action of the respondents in not examining the case of the applicant on their own volition in the light of the DoP&T instruction, dated 01.08.2007, and also the law decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Captain M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it is categorically made clear that the complicated questions of law and facts which are forming part of the criminal trial in respect of the very same allegation and the evidence proposed to be lead in both the proceedings shall be considered so as to take a decision to stay the departmental proceedings till the criminal trial is completed, is illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of Railway Board instructions, dated 28.10.1964, 06.06.1974, 22.03.1982, thereby, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. iv. The averment in the complaint that the applicant insisted on paying the bribe in the form of cheques to be issued in his name by providing adequate security for the alleged bribe amounts by way of a blank Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.221/2018 cheque and also a Promissory Note, clearly show that absurdity looms large and unnaturality is seen on the face of the complaint. The veracity of the complaint itself has to be suspected showing the whole allegation as false, as the applicant will not be in a position to do any favour, as the task mentioned in the allegation is impossible for the applicant.
v. The searches conducted during the investigation of the CBI at the residential premises of the applicant did not reveal any incriminating material, whereas the material seized from other places is connected to the applicant, making wild allegations against the applicant. vi. According to the applicant, the action of initiating proceedings, vide the impugned charge memorandum and the refusal to stop the proceedings are all illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. On issue of notice, reply statement has been filed on behalf of all the respondents, of which, the gist is given below:
i. The applicant, Sri Sk.Mahaboob Basha, while working as passenger Guard in Guntur Division was caught red-handed by the Central Bureau of Investigation/Visakhapatnam team while collecting illegal gratification from un-employed youth on false assurance of providing a job in the Railways and was taken into the custody and a criminal case No.RC 3(A)/2016-CBI/VSP was registered, on 25.02.2016, against him.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.221/2018 ii. He was kept under suspension from 25.02.2016, based on the advice from the Vigilance Organization/South Central Railway and it was reviewed periodically and extended as per the extant rules. As per the orders, dated 16.12.2016, received from the Vigilance Branch/South Central Railway, suspension was revoked on 22.12.2016, and he was posted away from Guntur.
iii. Central Bureau of Investigation/Visakhapatnam sent a copy of Charge Sheet, vide its letter, dt.05.06.2017, to the Sr.DOM/O/GNT, and the same was forwarded to the SDGM/Office/SC (Vigilance/Secunderabad). Based on the Draft Articles of Charge received from the SDGM/Office/SC (Vigilance/Secunderabad), Major Charge Memorandum, dt.08.09.2017, was prepared and served on the charged employee. The preliminary hearing was completed on 27.11.2017 and the regular hearing was scheduled to be held on 15.02.2018 and 16.02.2018. But this Tribunal stayed the disciplinary proceedings, vide order, dated 12.03.2018.
iv. According to the respondents, the OA is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the applicant has not impugned any order of the respondents and, hence, there is no cause of action and prayed to dismiss the OA on this ground alone.
v. As per the CBI Report No.RC 03(A)/2016-CBI, Visakhapatnam, dated 25.02.2016, Sri M.Vijay Kumar and his father, Sri M.Satyanarayana, who are residents of Guntur, jointly lodged a complaint with the CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam on 25.02.2016, that Sri Sk.Mahaboob Basha, Passenger Guard/Guntur, Guntur Division, SC Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.221/2018 Railway, had demanded and accepted cheque No.060241 for an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-, as bribe, from the complainant, on the promise of providing the job of Assistant Loco Pilot in the Railways to Sri M.Vijay Kumar. Sri Sk.Mahaboob Basha, Passenger Guard/Guntur, had demanded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in all, towards bribe, against which he had collected a cheque for Rs.60,000/- as the initial advance from Sri M.Satyanarayana, on 06.11.2015. Sri Sk.Mahaboob Basha, Passenger Guard/Guntur was arrested by CBI through a trap for demanding and accepting the said balance bribe amount through a cheque for balance amount of Rs.3,40,000/- from Sri M.Satyanarayana, father of Sri M.Vijay Kumar, and sent him to judicial custody.
vi. It is also submitted that it is true that the Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam, filed a report, u/s 173 Cr PC, in the court of the Hon'ble Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam. Based on the instructions received from the Superintendent of Police, HOB, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam, vide Ltr No: DPVIS 2017/1192/C/RC03(A)/2016/CBI/VSP, dt: 15.03.2017, and Ltr No. G265 /TC /20160300607 /T/N/GNT, dt: 30.08.2017, received from the SDGM/Office/SC (Vigilance/ Secunderabad), a major penalty charge memorandum, dated 08.09.2017, was issued to the applicant as a measure of Regular Departmental Action by the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that all allegations against Sri Sk.Mahaboob Basha are as made in the CBI Report Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.221/2018 No.RC 03(A)/2016-CBI, Visakhapatnam, dated 25.02.2016, and not suo moto by the Administration.
vii. The major penalty charge memorandum, dated 08.09.2017, was issued by the disciplinary authority to the applicant for conducting Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for committing acts in a manner unbecoming of a public servant, amounting to gross misconduct. The charged employee was given adequate time and opportunity to nominate defence counsel, but he was unwilling to nominate any defence counsel, as per his letter, dated 11.01.2018. He attended the preliminary hearing on 27.11.2017. As the charged employee was sick from 12.02.2018 to 25.02.2018, he could not attend regular hearing fixed on 15.02.2018 and 16.02.2018, but in his letter, dated 14.02.2018, he requested to drop the disciplinary proceedings.
viii. Respondents have taken the plea that the Railway Administration could not drop the charges on its own, when the CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam, and SDGM/Office/SC had instructed the administration to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The same was communicated by the disciplinary authority, vide letter, dt.05.03.2018. As per CBI Report No.RC 03(A)/2016-CBI, Visakhapatnam, dated 25.02.2016, the applicant had committed acts in a manner unbecoming of a public servant which amounted to gross misconduct, as such Conduct Rules (3)(i)(iii) and (xviii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 were applicable to him.
ix. It is argued that as per Dept. of Personnel and Training/New Delhi letter No.11012/6/2007-Estt.A, dt.01.08.2007, departmental Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.221/2018 proceedings can be initiated parallel to a criminal case, pending before the Court and as per the letters issued by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam, and the SDGM/ Office/ Secunderabad (Vigilance/Secunderabad) above, departmental proceedings were initiated parallel to the criminal case pending before the Hon'ble CBI Court/VSKP, as the applicant had committed gross misconduct and, thereby, violated the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966.
5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material placed before us.
6. The basic issue here is whether the department can hold disciplinary proceedings simultaneously during prosecution in a Court of Law. The scope for judicial review in departmental proceedings is very limited. As regards simultaneous action in criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings, DoP&T has issued elaborate guidelines, as follows in the OM, dt. 1st August, 2007, cited by the Applicant as well as by the Respondents as Ann-A5/R1:
"Subject: Simultaneous action of prosecution in a court and initiation of departmental proceedings.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the M.H.A. O.M.No.39/30/54-Ests., dated the 7th June, 1955 and No.39/8/64-Ests., dated the 4th September, 1964 on the above subject which state that prosecution should be the general rule in all cases which are found fit to be sent to court and in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial public funds and that in such cases departmental action should not precede prosecution. References are being received in this Department seeking clarification as to whether departmental action can also be taken where the same matter has been taken up in a court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the Government servant concerned.
2. What may be deduced from the above instructions is that, in serious cases involving offences such as bribery/corruption, etc., action should be launched for prosecution as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.221/2018 Court had held in their various judgments the important ones being State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meera and others [1996 6 SCC 417]. Capt.M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited [1993 3 SCC 679], Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v. T.Srinivas [2004 (6) SCALE 467] and Noida Entrepreneurs' Association v. Noida [JT 2007 (2) SC 620] that merely because a criminal trial is pending, a departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as is involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. 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 the Government servant are established and if established, what sentence can be imposed on him. In serious nature of cases like acceptance of illegal gratification, the desirability of continuing the concerned Government servant in service in spite of the serious charges leveled against him may have to be considered by the Competent Authority to proceed with departmental action.
x x x x x x x
4. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Sarvesh Berry (2004(10) SCALE Page 340), it has been held in Para.9 that "it is not 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 inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law." The Apex Court has referred to the conclusion given in Para.22 of Captain M.Paul Anthony's case.
5. It is, therefore, clarified that stay of disciplinary proceedings is not a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very same charges and the concerned authority may decide on proceedings with the departmental proceedings after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case and the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs."
7. The above position has been reiterated in DoP&T OM, dt. 21st July, 2016, which states as follows:
"Issue of charge sheet against an officer against whom an investigating agency is conducting investigation or against whom a charge sheet has been filed in a court.
4. It has been reaffirmed in a catena of cases that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.221/2018 set of allegations. In State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 = AIR 1997 SC 13 = 1997 (1) LLJ 746 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised the need for initiating departmental proceedings in such cases in these words:
It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanor 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 misdemeanor should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings.
In Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. , (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Supreme Court has observed that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately."
8. The above guidelines of DoPT, dt. 1st August, 2007 and dt. 21st July, 2016, have been further reiterated and clarified vide DoP&T OM, dt. 29th November, 2022, clearly stating that the "Hon'ble Supreme Court in their various judgments had held that the departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously."
9. The issue before us is squarely covered by the order, dt.25.11.2024, passed by this Tribunal in OA.Nos.686, 707/2022 & 210/2023, heard by us, wherein it is held as follows:
15. It is to be further noted that while considering the issue about the departmental proceedings pending the criminal trial on the basis of same facts and allegations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2518/2012 dt. 03.10.2023 in the matter of State Bank of India & Ors v. P. Zadenga, dealt with the question viz., whether is there any bar on continuing the departmental proceeding when the person subjected thereto is being tried before a criminal court for offences of the same origin. The Hon'ble Supreme court considered Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.221/2018 the position of law vis-à-vis the two proceedings of similar origin continuing simultaneously and the same is extracted hereunder: "14.1 This Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 referred to some decisions on the aspect of stay on disciplinary proceedings and observed :-
"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 emphasised, 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 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 not 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. ..."
14.2 Further, this Court in M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.
(1999) 3 SCC 679 elucidated the following principles in dealing with departmental and criminal proceedings simultaneously:-
a. No bar exits on both proceedings continuing simultaneously, though in an appropriate, separate forum.
b. If said proceedings are on identical/similar facts and if the charges levied against the delinquent employee are of a serious nature, then it would be desirable if the departmental proceedings are stayed till the conclusion of the other.
c. The nature of the charge or the involvement of complex questions of law and fact depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, i.e., the offence, nature of the case launched, evidence and material collected.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.221/2018 d. Sole consideration of the above-mentioned factors cannot be the reason to stay the departmental proceedings.
e. It must be remembered that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly and unjustly delayed."
Thus, it is to be noted that while referring to its previous judgments in line vis- à-vis the continuing the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings arising from the same allegations, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under:
"15. As is evident from the judicial pronouncements referred to above, it may be desirable or, in certain circumstances, advisable for disciplinary proceedings to be stayed when criminal proceedings are ongoing;
however, stay is not "a matter of course" and is only to be given after consideration of all factors, for and against."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "..taken along with the fact that it is not mandatory to stay the disciplinary proceedings, particularly when they have been initiated after the prescribed period of one year..." Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while setting aside the orders of the courts below, which were passed in favour of the employee, has held that the position of law is that the stay of departmental proceedings is desirable, but the same is to be affected only for a reasonable period of time and the nature of proceedings being wholly separate and distinct, even acquittal in criminal proceedings does not entitle the delinquent employee for any benefit in the departmental proceedings or automatic discharge in departmental proceedings. It has been further held that the courts can grant stay of the departmental proceedings for a reasonable period only and the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly and unjustly delayed for indefinite period.
16. It is also to be noted that it is well settled position that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings is altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the delinquent is guilty of such misconduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment being imposed on him, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any other penal laws are established, and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. Further, the standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules governing inquiry and trial in both the cases are significantly distinct and different.
x x x x x x x
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments held that there is no legal bar that both the proceedings can go on simultaneously though they are on same set of facts. Further, if a criminal case is unduly delayed that may itself a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry and the interests of administration and good governance demand that the same are to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.221/2018 be concluded expeditiously. It is also to be noted that, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. Further, 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 and 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 also not 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 and it would only serve the interest of the guilty and dishonest.
x x x x x x x x
21. It is also to be noted that, the very same Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dt. 21.10.2021 dismissed OA No. 499/2018, filed by an employee who was involved in similar charge of corruption, wherein the very same Department is the respondent. On a perusal of the said order of this Tribunal, it is clear that in the said case also, similar facts as in the present cases were involved and relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Bhadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari [AIR 1969 SC 30], State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr, this Tribunal observed that there is no legal bar to the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously and accordingly, the OA was dismissed. We have also perused the subsequent orders of this Tribunal and nowhere, this Tribunal has granted stay of the disciplinary proceedings for an indefinite period pending the criminal proceedings on the same set of facts. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to supra, is also very clear that there is no bar to proceed with the departmental proceedings while the criminal proceedings are pending. More particularly, in the instant cases, the criminal proceedings against the applicants have been pending from 2017 onwards and on that pretext, the departmental proceedings have been stayed from 2021.
22. Therefore, in view of the facts and law discussed above, we are of the considered view that no interference of this Tribunal is called for and the applicants are not entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, the OAs are dismissed being devoid of merits. Consequently, interim orders earlier granted are vacated."
10. Central Govt. policy, as laid down in the DoP&T OMs, referred to above, as well as judicial pronouncements discussed in the foregoing paras comprehensively answer the issue and clarify the point that there is no bar on Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.221/2018 conducting departmental proceedings during the pendency of prosecution in criminal cases. The departmental charge sheet is regarding misconduct and violation of conduct rules, while the prosecution is for fixing liability for crime under the law.
11. In this matter, stay has been granted by this Tribunal on disciplinary proceedings, vide order, dt.12.03.2018. Even if one has to consider holding back the departmental enquiry for some time, there is no justification for shielding corrupt elements indefinitely in such cases. Eight years have passed since the issue of the charge sheet on 08.09.2017 and seven years have elapsed since the order of stay on 12.03.2018 by this Tribunal. We do not wish to comment on the evidence cited in the case as it is left to the Special CBI Court and the inquiry authority to examine the same.
12. In view of the settled law as well as policy/rules in the matter, we are of the opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case in his favour.
13. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order, dt.12.03.2018, staying the disciplinary proceedings, is vacated. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne) Administrative Member Judicial Member 07.01.2025 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cf PALLI aa0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f 41813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this SANDHYA document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 13:39:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0