Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dilip Kumar Thakur vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 28 April, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2666/2009 This the 28th day of April 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Dilip Kumar Thakur Inspector of Police (under suspension) Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch, Block No.4 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi r/o 6064/1, Pocket D-6 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Sanjay Kumar) Versus 1. Central Bureau of Investigation through The Director Central Bureau of Investigation Block No.3, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi 2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Disciplinary Authority) Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch Block No.4, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. Shri Vivek Priyadarshi Additional Supdt. Of Police (Inquiry Officer) Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Branch Block No.4, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri K M Singh for Shri R N Singh) O R D E R
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant, who is facing a criminal trial under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, 1988, by virtue of this OA, has impugned the memorandum dated 19.2.2009 whereby the inquiry has been simultaneously proceeded.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for applicant states that Sections 7 and 24 of the PC Act do not envisage prosecution under Section 12 of a person, who had made statement in a proceeding under Sections 7 or 11. As such by relying upon the instructions issued by the CBI on 19.11.1990, which are in vogue, it is stated that the decision has been taken to keep the disciplinary proceedings, when initiated on the same facts, in abeyance till the criminal case is finally concluded. The disciplinary proceedings have been kept in abeyance as the complainant has written a letter to the respondents that she would make a statement in the departmental inquiry only after her statement is recorded by the Court.
3. In the above view of the mater, as the charge has been framed and the matter is listed before a criminal court for evidence, the inquiry if continued shall cause prejudice to the applicant, as he would be compelled to disclose his defence sought to be taken in the criminal trial prior in disciplinary proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for applicant states that the allegations leveled in the criminal case as well as in the disciplinary proceedings are founded on common facts and are grave involving complicated questions of law. As such the inquiry is to be stayed.
5. On the other hand, learned proxy counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and by relying upon the decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. Kuni Setty Satyanarayana, 2007 (1) SCT 452, he has stated that the allegations against the applicant in the criminal case as well as departmental action are not based on same facts, as the departmental inquiry pertains to the conduct of the applicant, whereas the trial is based on the offence. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of the OA is made.
6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
7. In our considered view, there is no hard and fast rule for stay of the disciplinary proceedings simultaneously with the criminal trial but in view of the trite law in Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan & others v. T Srinivas, 2004 (2) SC SLJ 201 and State Bank of India & others v. R.B. Sharma, 2004 (2) SC SLJ 205 relying upon the decision of Apex Court Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, JT 1999 (2) 456, if the allegations are identical involving integrated question of law and mixed question of facts of law as well, it is advisable to keep the disciplinary proceedings on hold, so that the concerned should not be prejudiced in his defence in the criminal trial, as the witnesses, who are sought to be examined in criminal case, are examined earlier in the disciplinary proceedings. However, once the CBI has taken a policy decision in such cases pertaining to their employees, the same is binding. We have not come across any pleadings that the aforesaid OM of 1990 since being superceded and is still in vogue.
8. As regards the allegations, we do not find any difference in the facts constituting evidence and allegations in the disciplinary proceedings. As such, once they have kept the inquiry in abeyance because the complainant Smt. Kusum Sehgal does not want to depose before her deposition in the criminal case, it shall be in the fitness of things to stay the disciplinary proceedings till common prosecution witnesses in both the proceedings are examined and cross-examined by the applicant in the criminal trial. Thereafter it shall be open for the respondents to resume the proceedings and in such an event, law shall take its own course.
9. With this, OA stands disposed of. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/