Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
S Gopala Krishna Murthy vs Revenue on 25 November, 2024
OA 686/2022 & batch
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA Nos 686, 707 of 2022 & 210 of 2023
Reserved on: 04.11.2024
Pronounced on: 25.11.2024
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
OA No.686/2022
S.Gopala Krishna Murthy S/o Late S.L.Venkaiah (Group-B),
Aged 56 yrs, Occupation : Superintendnt of Customs & GST,
O/o Principal Commissioner of Customs & GST, Basheerbagh,
L.B.Stadium, Cell No.7893991172, e-mail : [email protected]
R/o Flat No.103, Sai Soudha Apartments, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad-20.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Srinivas Chaturvedula)
Vs
1. Union of India, M/o Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary.
2.Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, North Block,
New Delhi, Rep by its Chairman.
3.The Principal Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road,
Ramkoti, Hyderabad. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr.D.Laxminarayana Rao, Sr. PC for CG)
---
OA No.707/2022
D.Tata Rao S/o Late D.Venkanna,
Aged 51 yrs, Inspector of Central Tax (Group B Non-Gaz),
Hyderabad Audit-1 Commissionerate,
H.No.3-4-118/1 NR, 1st Floor,
Elegant Maharaja, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500 013. ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr.KRKV Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by the Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
J 684+843, North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs,
GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
1 of 27
OA 686/2022 & batch
3.The Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Audit-1 Commissionerate,
H.No.3-4-118/I NR, 1st Floor, Elegant Maharaja,
Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-500 013.
4.The Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs,
Secunderabad GST Commissionerate,
GST Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500 004. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr.B.Mdhusudhan Reddy, Sr. PC for CG)
---
OA No.210/2023
K.Narayana Prasad S/o Venkateswar Rao,
Aged 50 yrs, Inspector of Central Tax (Group B Non-Gaz),
Hyderabad Audit-2 Commissionerate, 1-98/B/20,21,
Sanvi Yamuna Pride, Krithika Layout, Madhapur,
Hitech City, Hyderabad-500 081. ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr.KRKV Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by the Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
J 684+843, North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110 001.
2.Chief Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs,
GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
3.The Principal Commissioner of Customs,
Hyderabad Customs Commissionerate,
GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500 004.
4.The Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs,
Service Tax, Medchal Commissionerate,
Medchal GST Bhavan, 11-4-649/B, Lakadikapool,
Hyderabad-500 004.
5.The Commissioner of Central Tax,
Hyderabad Audit-2 Commissionerate, 1-98/B/20,21,
Sanvi Yamuna Pride, Krithika Layout, Madhapur,
Hitech City, Hyderabad -500 081. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr.R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, Sr. PC for CG)
---
2 of 27
OA 686/2022 & batch
COMMON ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) Since the relief sought and the question of law involved in all the three OAs is similar, all the OAs were heard together with the consent of counsel for both sides and upon hearing, this common order is being passed.
2. The relief sought in three OAs is as follows:
OA 686/2022:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to declare the notice vide C. No. S/68/Misc/01/2021-ICD, dated 19.09.2022 proposing to conduct departmental enquiry contrary to the findings of this Hon‟ble Court in O.A. No. 811/2021 dated 16.02.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
OA 707/2022:
"In view of the facts stated above, the Applicant humbly pray that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to Memorandum C.No.II/10-A/01/2021-CIU dated 02.02.2021 and letter issued vide C.No.S/68/Misc/03/2021-ICD, dated 11.10.2022 by the Inquiry Officer; and declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry vide the said notice dated 11.10.2022 in pursuance of the said memorandum dated 02.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of the law, and set aside the said notice dated 11.10.2022, with a direction to keep the Charge Memorandum in abeyance till criminal trial is completed and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
OA 210/2023:
"In view of the facts stated above, the Applicant humbly pray that this Hon‟ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to letter C.No.S/68/Misc/02/2021-ICD, dated 20.03.2023; and declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry vide the said notice dated 20.03.2023 in pursuance of the said memorandum C.No.II/10-A/02/2018- CIU(MED) dated 05.03.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of the law, and set aside the said notice dated 20.03.2023, with other consequential proceedings, if any, insisting the applicant to attend the disciplinary inquiry; and direct the respondents to keep the Charge Memorandum in abeyance till criminal trial is completed and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case in OA 686/2022 are as follows:
(i) The applicant joined the respondent's organization in 1995 as Inspector and was subsequently promoted as Superintendent in 2009. The CBI had registered a 3 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch criminal case against the applicant for allegedly indulging in corrupt practices and collecting illegal gratification. As per the CBI charge sheet, the applicant and his team of Anti-Evasion visited the premises by name M/s. K.M. Plastics on 1.3.2017 and conducted inspection at the factory under panchanama. The allegation made against the applicant was that he had demanded a bribe amount from the proprietor of M/s. K.M. Plastics and that he wanted the bribe amount to be delivered at the office of the applicant on 7.3.2017. CBI deputed a team officers along with two witnesses for conducting surveillance at Central Excise, Basheerbagh on 7.3.2017.
The proprietor of K.M. Plastics had visited the Central Excise office at Basheerbagh and thereafter he left the office. The applicant followed him on his two-wheeler and directed the bribe amount to be placed in the luggage box of the two wheeler at KFC, Himayatnagar. On noticing the same, CBI team stopped the vehicle of the applicant and recovered an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from his vehicle. Thereafter, in the search conducted in the office of Anti-Evasion, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was seized from the almirah of D. Tata Rao, Inspector (Applicant in OA No. 707/2022) and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the residence of D. Tata Rao. Further, an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was recovered from the residence of K. Narayana Prasad (Applicant in OA No. 210/2023). On the basis of the seized amounts, a case was registered by CBI on 07.03.2017. On 20.01.2021 a charge memorandum was issued to the applicant.
(ii) It is submitted that the proprietor of M/s. K.M. Plastics, Mr. Jagadish Prasad Sarda was arrayed as Accused No.2 in the criminal case filed by the CBI and the applicant was arrayed as Accused No.1 and other employees who are the applicants in the other two OAs were arrayed as Accused No.3 & 4 respectively and the trial in the said criminal case is underway before the CBI Court. The sole article of charge levelled against the applicant is that he had acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from Sri Jagadish Prasad 4 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch Sarda, Proprietor of M/s. K.M. Plastics. Therefore, the the allegation made against the applicant in the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings is identical.
(iii) The applicant earlier filed OA No. 811 of 2021 questioning the simultaneous proceedings being conducted by the department while the criminal case registered by the CBI is pending and this Tribunal vide order dt. 16.02.2022, directed the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings initiated against him in abeyance for six monmths or till the evidence is completed in the criminal case, whichever is earlier. This Court finally directed that "After the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law."
(iv) It is the contention of the applicant that the respondents did not contest the said order, thereby it attained finality. Therefore, no departmental proceedings under the impugned proceedings on identical charges as that of the criminal proceedings are maintainable. Despite the above order of this Tribunal and in utter disregard to the same, the respondents issued the impugned notice dt. 19.09.2022 directing the applicant to participate in the departmental proceedings. On receipt of the said notice, the applicant submitted a representation to the Inquiry Officer on 07.10.2022 with a request to defer the enquiry basing on the judgment of this Tribunal in the earlier OA No. 811 /2022. Having left with no other option, the applicant filed this OA.
(iv) The respondents contested the OA by filing reply statement, inter alia, contending that the scope of disciplinary proceedings is different from the scope of criminal proceedings. Appointment of Inquiry Officer, Presenting Officer, hearing the version of charged officer and cross-examination of witnesses are integral part of the disciplinary proceedings. This Tribunal in the earlier OA directed to keep the disciplinary proceedings in abeyance for a period of six months and the inquiry 5 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch proceedings were put into motion by way of the impugned notice only after the expiry of the six months period. Therefore, there is no violation of the order of this Tribunal.
(vi) The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the OA.
4. Facts of the case in OA 707 of 2022:
(i) The applicant, while working as Inspector of Central Tax in the jurisdiction of Hyderabad-ll Commissionerate, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBl), Hyderabad registered a case on 07.03.2017 based on information received against one Shri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Superintendent of Central Excise, Anti-
Evasion, Hyderabad-ll Cornmissionerate that the said officer demanded Rs.10 Lakhs from one Shri Jagadish of M/s KM Plastics and Shri Jagadish is likely to deliver the bribe amount to the said officer. The CBI conducted proceedings outside the office and allegedly recovered Rs. 4 Lakhs from Shri Gopala Krishna Murthy on 07.03.2017. The CBI, thereafier, conducted searches at Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate to recover the balance of Rs.6 lakhs and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered from the office almirah. During the searches, conducted in the residence of the applicant, the CBI illegally seized personal amount of Rs. I Lakh of the applicant. The said amounts of Rs.2 Lakhs and Rs.1 Lakh were tagged to the applicant and added him as an accused in the Charge Sheet filed in the Court of the Hon'ble Speciat Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Criminal Court is conducting trial against the applicant, who is Accused No.4 and other three officials. It is submitted by the applicant that Charge Memorandum dt. 02.02.2021 has been issued after 4 years from the date of alleged incident occured on 07.03.2017 with the same set of facts and circumstances as in the Criminal case, when the prosecution sanction had been issued on 31.05.2018.
6 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch
(ii) It is the contention of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated on mere suspicion without having any evidence only to account the alleged amount paid to Mr. Gopala Krishna Murthy. Aggrieved by the said charge memo, the applicant earlier filed OA No. 738/2021 upon the rejection of his request by the respondents to stay the departmental proceedings. This Tribunal vide order dt.01.12.2021, stayed the departmental proceedings for a period of six months and thereafter, the department is at liberty to review and take decision in accordance with law. Upon completion of 6 months time, the applicant submitted representation on 14.06.2022, however, the Inquiry Officer issued notice dt. 19.09.2022 directing the applicant to attend the inquiry on 11.10.2022, against which, the applicant once again submitted representation on the very same day i.e. 11.10.2022 with a request not to proceed with the inquiry till criminal case is decided. The Inquiry Officer issued notice dt. 11.10.2022 fixing the inquiry on 28.10.2022. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed this OA.
(iii) The respondents filed reply statement opposing the OA. It is stated by the respondents that during investigation by the officers of CBI, Sri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy had revealed that the bribe amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs was shared amongst the team members viz., Shri K. Narayana Prasad and Shri D. Tata Rao, who is the applicant and therefore, search was conducted by the CBI which led to recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- from the office almirah of the applicant in room No. 700 of Anti- Evasion Section, 6th Floor, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh and Rs.1,00,000/- from his residential premises. The CBI, ACB, Hyderabad informed the respondents trhat cases were registered against the applicants under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 07.03.2017. The CBI also fowarded the investigation report to the respondents with a recommendation for regular departmental action for major 7 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch penalty against the applicant and also sought for sanction of prosecution. Further, the CBI, Hyderabad also informed the respondents that chaerge sheet in the case case was filed on 31.05.2018 before the Hon'ble Prl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by issuing charge memos in terms of the DOPT OM dt. 01.08.2007 and the Inquiry officer and presenting officer have been appointed.
(iv) It is submitted by the respondents that, in OA No. 738/2021 earlier filed by this applicant, this Tribunal stayed the departmental proceedings for a period of six months, and thereafter, the Department is at liberty to review and take decision in accordance with law. As per the said order of this Tribunal, the inquiry proceedings were resumed only after completion of six months period from the date of the order of this Tribunal and the same was communicated to the applicant vide letter dt. 11.10.2022. Challenging the same, the applicant once again approached this Tribunal by way of the instant OA. This Tribunal vide interim order dt. 27.10.2022 observed that interim stay of the inquiry cannot be granted and against denial of interim order, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court vide WP No. 40886/2022, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dt. 08.11.2022 disposed of the writ petition by remanding back to the Tribunal to hear the matter again and that till Tribunal takes a decision, the impugned notice will be kept in abeyance.
(v) It is contended by the respondents that the DOPT vide OM dt. 01.08.2007 issued instructions that merely because a criminal trial is pending, departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred and the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The DOPT vide its 8 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch subsequent OM dt. 21.07.2016 reiterated that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations. Even the CVC vide Circular dt. 31.07.2018 clarified that the disciplinary authorities are vested with responsibility to ensure that employees under their control against whom criminal trial is pending are proceeded against forthwith for simultaneous departmental proceedings. The respondents further contended that the charge framed against the applicant in the departmental inquiry is in regard to his misconduct, lack of devotion to duty, lack of integrity and his conduct unbecoming of a public servant, which are violative of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the charges framed in the departmental proceedings are sought to be established on the basis of evidence which would prove preponderance of probability of the misconduct, but it is not necessarily based on the recovery of the bribe money from the applicant alone, whereas, the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the criminal court is entirely different and the same is governed by different procedure of law and the same has to be proved on evidence, in strict conformity to the law of evidence.
(vi) It is further submitted by the respondents that the law is settled that the disciplinary proceedings can be allowed to proceed simultaneously when a criminal trial is pending on the same charges. In support of their case, the respondents relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Suprmee Court, which are as under:
i) Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd & Anr, (1999) 3 SCC 679
ii) Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd Yousuf Miya, Civil Appeal No. 15420-
22 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) No. 16386, 16868 & 16920 of 1996
iii) State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417
iv) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors v. T. Srinivas, Civil Appeal (C) No. 4985 of 2004 arising out of SLP No. 24698 of 2003.
9 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch
v) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd v. Kushal Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 806, 1960 (3) SCR 227
vi) HPCL v. Sarvesh Berry, Civil Appeal No. 7980 of 2004, arising out of SLP (C) No. 24560 of 2003.
(vii) The respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dt. 07.04.2022 passed in WA No. 324/2022 in the matter of Binod Kumar Mangal v. South Eastern Cold Fields Limited and also the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dt. 25.04.2022 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14042/2021 in support of their contention that there is no bar to proceed with departmental proceedings when the criminal proceedings are pending. The respondents also cited the order dt. 21.10.2021 pased by this Tribunal (Hyderabad Bench) in an identical case in OA 499/2018 wherein this Tribunal dismissed the OA. Thus, the respondents sought for dismissal of the OA.
5. Facts of the case in OA 710 of 2023:
(i) While the applicant was working as Inspector of Central Tax in Hyderabad-II Commissionerate, tthe CBI, Hyderabad registered a case on 07.03.2017 vide RC 06(A) / 2017 based on a source information allegedly received to the effect that one Sri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Superintendent of Central Excise, Anti-Evasion, Hyderabad-II Commissionerate has demanded Rs.10 Lakhs from Sri Jagdish of M/s KM Plastics and the latter was likely to deliver the said bribe amount to Sri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy. The CBI allegedly conducted proceedings outside the office of Sri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy and allegedly recovered an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs from him on 07.03.2017. Thereafter, the CBI conducted searches in the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad - II Commissioner to recover the balance amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs allegedly paid by Shri Jagadish to Sri Gopala Krishna Murthy. An amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs was 10 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch recovered from the office almirah and an amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs kept by the applicant at his residence, from out of the sale proceedings of a property sold by the applicant, was also seized by the CBI. After 4 years of the alleged incident, which took place on 07.03.2027, departmental proceedings were initiated against him vide charge memo dt. 05.03.2021, based on the very same allegations as that of the charges in the criminal case. In those circusmtances, the applicant filed OA No. 701/2021, wherein, this Tribunal passed an order on 16.02.2022 granting stay of disciplinary inquiry for a period of 6 months or till the evidence is completed in the criminal case, whichever is earlier, with a further direction that after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. While so, the inquiry officer issued notice dt. 19.09.2022 calling upon the applicant to attend the inquiry on 10.10.2022, against which, the applicant made representation dt. 10.10.2022, raising objection that this Tribunal categorically directed that after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The inquiry officer again issued notice dt. 20.03.2023, fixing the inquiry date as 11.04.2023. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the applicant approached this Tribunal in the instant OA.
(ii) It is the contention of the applicant that law is clear that if disciplinary proceedings initiated on the same allegations and the same evidence which are subject matter of criminal proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings shall be stayed till completion of criminal proceedings. As very complex questions of law and facts are involved in the criminal case, if he reveals his defence in the departmental proceedings ahead of the criminal proceedings, it would seriously prejudice his cause in the criminal case.
6. Heard learned counsel for both sides in all the OAs and perused the pleadings and material on record. We have also gone through the judgments cited by both sides.
11 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch
7. Learned counsel for the applicants argued on the point that it is not in dispute that the CBI registered a criminal case against the applicant in OA No. 686/2022 with an allegation that he had demanded bribe from the proprietor of M/s. KM Plastics and wanted the bribe amount to be delivered at his office on 07.03.2017. The CBI laid a trap and caught the applicant red handed and amounts were also recovered from the other applicants during the search conducted by the CBI. Learned counsel argued that the incident pertains to the year 2017. Accordingly, in connection with the said incident, three FIRs were registered against the applicants on 07.03.2017. Subsequently, charge memos were issued to the applicants on 20.01.2021, 02.02.2021 and 05.03.2021 respectively on the very same allegations as are in the criminal cases registered against the applicants. Against the said charge memos, the applicants earlier filed OAs 811/2021, 738/2021 & 701/2021 & respectively and vide orders dated 16.02.2022, 01.12.2021 & 16.02.2022 respectively, this Tribunal relying upon the judgment in Captain M. Paul Anthony and the subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are in consonance with the judgment of Capt. M. Paul Anthony, directed the respondents to keep the departmental inquires initiated against the applicants in abeyance for a period of six months or till the evidence is completed in the criminal case, whichever is earlier and after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued on the point that though the court in the opening line of the direction mentioned that the said departmental proceedings to be kept in abeyance for six months or till the evidence is completed in the criminal case whichever is earlier, however, in the last line of the order, the court has mentioned that "After the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law." Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants argued that the decision rendered by the competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for 12 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch the reasons that if it is permitted to do so there would be "confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning." In support of the said contention, learned counsel cited the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4840/2021 dt. 17.08.2021 in the matter of Neelima Srivastava v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Hence, the respondents have no right to issue the impugned notice dt. 19.09.2022 & 11.10.2022, 20.03.2023 directing the applicants to appear before the inquiry officer contrary to the orders of this Tribunal. Further, learned counsel cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2518 of 2012 dt. 03.10.2023 in the matter of State Bank of India & Ors v. P. Zadenga wherein a reference has been made to the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony while dealing with simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings and submitted that when the allegations in both the proceedings are identical, the department may not be permitted to proceed with the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal trial is not prejudiced, thereby the right of the applicants has been infringed. Learned counsel further contended that once the respondents have accepted the order of this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation and have not challenged, thereby it attained finality, the orders of this Tribunal are binding on the respondents. Accordingly, the action of the respondents to proceed with the departmental inquiry pending the criminal trial is contrary to the orders of this Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued on the point that the respondents in their reply have admitted that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on identical charges and on the said admission of the Department, the applicants' cases are covered under the order of this Hon'ble Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and therefore, the respondents Department has to maintain some judicial discipline. Therefore, when the applicants have approached 13 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch this Tribunal challenging the notices impugned in the instant OAs viz., OA No. 686/2022 & 210/2023, by way of interim relief, this Tribunal has stayed the inquiry. However, in OA No. 707/2022, vide order dated 27.10.2022, this Tribunal did not grant interim stay and therefore, WP No. 40886/2022 was filed by the applicant, wherein similar interim order was directed to be maintained till the Tribunal decides the case. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the OAs.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the relief. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during investigation by the officers of CBI, Sri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy (applicant in OA 686/2022) had revealed that the bribe amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs was shared amongst the team members Shri K. Narayana Prasad (Applicant in OA 210/2023) and Shri D. Tata Rao (Applicant in OA 707/2022) and therefore, search was conducted by the CBI which led to recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- from the office almirah of Sri D. Tata Rao in room No. 700 of Anti-Evasion Section, 6th Floor, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh and Rs.1,00,000/- from his residential premises. The CBI, ACB, Hyderabad informed the respondents on 16.03.2017 that a case was registered against the applicant under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 07.03.2017 and the applicants were arrested on 08.03.2017/09.03.2017 and sent to judicial custody. On receipt of the said information from CBI, the applicant in OA No. 686/2022 was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 08.03.2017 vide order dt. 17.03.2017, which was revoked w.e.f. 04.09.2017. The CBI fowarded the investigation report on 24.05.2018 to the respondents with a recommendation for regular departmental action for major penalty against the applicant and also sought for sanction of prosecution. Further, the CBI, Hyderabad vide letter dt. 25.10.2018 informed the respondents that 14 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch chaerge sheet in the case case was filed on 31.05.2018 before the Hon'ble Prl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide charge memo dt. 02.02.2021 in terms of the DOPT OM dt. 01.08.2007 and the Inquiry officer and presenting officer have been appointed on 02.09.2021. It is further argued that, in OA No. 738/2021 filed by this applicant earlier, this Tribunal stayed the departmental proceedings for a period of six months, with a further observation that the Department is at liberty to review and take decision in accordance with law. As per the said order of this Tribunal, the inquiry proceedings were resumed only after completion of six months period from the date of the order of this Tribunal and the same was communicated to the applicant vide letter dt. 11.10.2022. In the other two Oas also, after completion of six months period, notices were issued to the applicants to attend the inquiry.
10. It is the further argument of the respondents counsel that the DOPT vide OM dt. 01.08.2007 issued instructions that merely because a criminal trial is pending, departmental inquiry involving the very same charges as in the criminal proceedings is not barred and the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The DOPT vide its subsequent OM dt. 21.07.2016 reiterated that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings on the same set of allegations. Even the CVC vide Circular dt. 31.07.2018 clarified that the disciplinary authorities are vested with responsibility to ensure that the employees under their control against whom criminal trial is spending are proceeded against forthwith for simultaneous departmental proceedings. The respondents further contended that the charges framed against the applicants in the departmental inquiry are in regard to their misconduct, lack of devotion to duty, lack of integrity 15 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch and their conduct unbecoming of public servants, which are violative of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the charges framed in the departmental proceedings are sought to be established on the basis of evidence which would prove preponderance of probability of the misconduct, but it is not necessarily based on the recovery of the bribe money from the applicant alone, whereas, the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the criminal court is entirely different and the same is governed by different procedure of law and the same has to be proved on evidence, in strict conformity to the law of evidence.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents argued on the point that the charges in the Departmental inquiry, though based on the criminal cases, however, the applicants were caught red handed by the CBI. Accordingly, the CBI registered FIR under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 7, 12 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the applicants have been arrayed as Accused 1, 3 & 4 in the Criminal case. The applicants were arrested on 08.03.2017/09.03.2017 and were released on 31.03.2017/18.03.2017. Thus, the applicants who were caught red handed in the CBI trap while accepting part bribe amount from the proprietor of M/s. KM Plastics have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servants, thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. Taking into cognizance of the fact that all the applicants were arrayed as Accused in criminal cases and for enforcement of discipline and to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent officers, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings as mandated under the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and accordingly issued charge memos to the applicants. Further, the learned counsel contended that in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority, the preponderance of the probabilities of the case would be taken into consideration whereas, in the 16 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch criminal case registered against the applicants, the charges alleged against the applicants have to be proved in the trial beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, these proceedings are mandated by law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments including M. Paul Anthony. Therefore, the applicants cannot rely upon the line that the charges are identical. In fact, when the order was passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation filed by these applicants, at that point of time, CBI court did not frame any charges. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are on different footing and the charges in the criminal case are under the Prevention of Corruption Act whereas the charges in the departmental proceedings are under CCS (Conduct) Rules and the standard of proof required in both the proceedings is different. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly argued that there is no bar as such for initiating parallel proceedings by the department. Further, the applicants have submitted detailed representations to the charge memos whereby they have denied the charges and requested to submit a detailed reply during the course of proceedings. In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal has stayed the disciplinary proceedings for a period of six months or the till the evidence in the criminal case is completed, whichever is earlier. Therefore the direction given by the court in the earlier round has to be read in full text and not in piecemeal.
12. Further, when the applicant in OA 707/2022 was denied interim relief against the notice to appear before the IO, he approached the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 40886/2022 and after considering the orders of this Tribunal in the other two matters, the Hon'ble High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to re- examine his case in terms of the order in OA No. 686/2022 and the proceedings in respect of asking the said applicant to appear in the inquiry were directed to be kept in abeyance till the Tribunal considers the case of the applicant on par with other applicants. Thus, the applicants failed to understand the orders passed by this 17 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch Tribunal in the earlier occasion in its proper perspective and thereby, they are misinterpreting the orders of this Tribunal. It is further argued by the respondents that the law is settled that the disciplinary proceedings can be allowed to proceed simultaneously when a criminal trial is pending on the same charges. In support of their case, the respondents relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Suprmee Court. He submitted that the applicants are not entitled for any relief in these OAs.
13. Admittedly, a trap was laid by the officers of the CBI,ACB, Hyderabad on 07.03.2017 against the applicants and others on the basis of source complaint that the applicants and others working in Anti Evasion Wing, Hyderabad II Commissionerate, Hyderabad indulged in corrupt practices and are collecting illegal gratification regularly and they demanded bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- from one Sri Jagadish Prasad Sarada of M/s. KM Plastic and Sri G.Gopal Krishna Murthy, the applicant in OA 686/2022 was caught red handed on 07.03.2017 while accepting part bribe amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The applicant in OA 707/2022 came to be arrested on 08.03.2017/09.03.2017 and released on bail on 31.03.2017/18.03.2017. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicants exhibited lack of devotion to duty and failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servants. Taking cognizance of the same and to enforce discipline and to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority, as mandated under the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 issued charge memo dt. 20.01.2021 against the applicant in OA 686/2022. The other applicants were issued with charge memos dated 02.02.2021 and 05.03.2021. Against the said charge memos, the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 811 of 2021; 738/2021 & 701/2021, wherein the applicants' main plea was that the disciplinary authority issued the charge memos with the identical charges as that of the charges levelled in the 18 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch criminal proceedings and therefore, the respondents cannot proceed with the departmental inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal cases before the CBI court. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble of the Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony and the subsequent judgments and considering the statement of imputations, this Tribunal opined that the charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings seem to be identical. Therefore, this Tribunal vide its orders dt.16.02.2022 in OA 701/2021 & 811/2021 directed the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicants in abeyance for a period of six months or till the evidence is completed in the criminal cases, whichever is earlier and after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. In fact, vide order dt. 01.12.2021 in the OA 738/2021, this Tribunal stayed the departmental proceedings only for a period of six months, giving liberty to the department to review and take decision thereafter in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents, after six months period from the date of the orders in the earlier OAs, have issued notices to the applicants to appear before the IO for hearing on the scheduled dates. Aggrieved by the said notices, the applicants have approached this Tribunal impugning the notices in the present OAs mainly harping on one portion of the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. "After the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law". It is further urged by the applicants that when the order of this Tribunal has been accepted by the respondents without challenging the same before the High Court and same attained finality, the respondents' action is contrary to law.
14. It is to be noted that the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation referred to supra cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read in its entirety. In the opening line of the direction of the Tribunal, it has been made clear 19 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch that the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicants in abeyance for six months or till the evidence is completed in criminal case, whichever is earlier and in the last sentence, it is mentioned that, after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, which means that before expiry of the six months, which was granted by this Tribunal, if criminal cases were to be decided, the parties are given liberty to proceed in accordance with law. On simple reading of the order of this Tribunal, the intention of the Tribunal is clear that the departmental proceedings have to be kept in abeyance for six months or till the evidence is completed in the criminal case, whichever is earlier. No way, the line which is added further has to be read in isolation as the court has not given any direction to keep the departmental proceedings in abeyance till completion of the criminal cases. Therefore, reading the last line of the order in isolation will have no meaning at all.
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 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 20 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch 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. 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."
21 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch 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.
17. In the present cases, the FIRs were registered in the year 2017 and the departmental inquiry was initiated by way of charge memos to the applicants in the year 2021. Charge memos were served on the applicants and they submitted representations. It is to be noted that the charges against the applicants are very 22 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch serious, pertaining to illegal gratification of huge amount. Therefore, stay of disciplinary proceedings pending the criminal proceedings should not be a matter of course and it should be a considered decision. Even if stay is granted at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed. It is to be noted that pending the criminal case, the applicant in OA No. 686/2022 Sri S. Gopala Krishna Murthy, who was aged 56 years in 2022 would reach the age of superannuation by 2026. As already referred, the FIRs against the applicants were registered on 07.03.2017 and the applicants were issued with charge memos by the disciplinary authority in the year 2021. In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal granted stay of the departmental proceedings pursuant to the said charge memos for a period of six months. Only after expiry of six months, as directed by this Tribunal, the departmental inquiry against the applicants sought to be conducted by issuing the said notices in 2022/2023, which are impugned in the present OAs, to appear for the inquiry and there has been stay of the said inquiry from 2022/2023 onwards. Now, we are in the fag end of 2024. Already a period of more than seven years elapsed from the date of the registration of FIRs done in the year 2017 and nearly 4 years elapsed from the issuance of the charge memos by the disciplinary authority.
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 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 23 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch 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.
19. Though this Tribunal stayed the departmental inquiry for six months or till the evidence is completed, whichever is earlier, when the earlier orders were passed by this Tribunal, admittedly, no charges were framed by the CBI court at that time and this Tribunal opined that the charges seem to be identical. In fact, the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad framed charges against the applicants on 22.04.2022 in CC No. 7 of 2019. Further, when the department wanted to proceed with the inquiry after the period of six months, which time stipulation was granted by this Tribunal in the earlier orders and when one of the applicants has been denied the interim relief in OA 707/2022, he approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP No. 40886/2022 and, the Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to re-examine the issue and to deal with his case on par with the applicant in OA No. 686/2022 and till such, the inquiry shall be kept in abeyance. As already referred, there has been stay of the departmental inquiry from 2022/2023 onwards.
20. It is also to be noted that the DOPT, vide its OM dt. 01.08.2017 issued guidelines on the subject of simultaneous action of prosecution and initiation of departmental proceedings. The relevant portion of the said OM reads thus:
"4. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. 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 24 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch 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 conclusions 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 proceeding 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."
Subsequently, the DOPT vide OM dt. 21.07.2016 issued further guidelines on the subject and the relevant portion is 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 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.
5. 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."
Even the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, vide Circular No. 08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018 issued guidelines on the subject referring to the DOPT OMs dt. 01.08.2007 and 21.07.2016, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'bnle Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. The DOPT also issued consolidated guidelines on the subject vide OM dt. 29.11.2022 reiterating the earlier instructions. It is not the case of the applicants that the OMs 25 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch of the DOPT referred to above in the line to proceed with the departmental inquiry pending the criminal trial have been challenged before any Court.
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.
26 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch
23. Further, the respondents may conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicants including passing final orders expeditiously without waiting for the result of the pending criminal proceedings, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
24. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member(A) Member(J)
/evr/
27 of 27