Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
A Satish Kumar vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 30 January, 2024
1
OA.No.611/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00611/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON 12.12.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 30.01.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
A.Satish Kumar, S/o Late Shri A.V.Narasimham
Aged 55 years, Occ: Superintendent of Central Tax
O/o The Commissioner of Central Tax
Hyderabad Audit-1 Commissionerate
H.No.3-4-118/1 NR, 1st Floor
Elegant Maharaja, Ramanthpur
Hyderabad - 500013. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India Rep. by
The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes
Room No.406, C-Wing
Hudco Vishala Building, Bhakaji Cama Place
R.K.Puram, New Delhi - 110066.
2. The Chief Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs
Hyderabad Zone, GST Bhavan
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004.
3. The Commissioner of Central Tax
Tirupati GST Commissionerate
9/86-A, Amaravathi Nagar
West Church Compound, Tirupati.
4. The Commissioner of Central Tax
Hyderabad Audit-1 Commissionerate
H.No.3-4-118/1 NR, 1st Floor
Elegant Maharaja, Ramanthpur
Hyderabad-500013.
5. Sri K.Vinod Kumar (Inquiry Officer)
Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax
O/o The Commissioner of Central Tax
Hyderabad Audit-1 Commissionerate
2
OA.No.611/2023
H.No.3-4-118/1 NR, 1st Floor
Elegant Maharaja, Ramanthpur
Hyderabad - 500013. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Babu, Additional Central Government
Standing Counsel)
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking therein the following relief:
"To call for the records pertaining to Charge Memorandum C.No.II/10- A/01/2017-CIU, dated 05.01.2018; order dated 31.07.2023; notice for disciplinary inquiry dated 27.09.2023, Daily Order Sheet dated 06.10.2023, with other consequential proceedings; and set aside and quash the said proceedings directing the respondents to accordingly grant all consequential benefits as if the Charge Memorandum dated 05.01.2018 has not been issued and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case as adduced by the applicant are as below:
I. While the applicant was working as Superintendent, Central Excise, Nandyal Range, Nandyal in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh, the Hyderabad Branch of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Hyderabad registered a case vide RC 10(A) / 2017 on 09.05.2017 based on a false complaint given by one contractor Sri Arif, Proprietor of M/s. 12 Brand Special Beedies. The FIR dated 09.05.2017 u/s 7 of PC Act, 1988 was issued to the Court of Hon'ble Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad. After completing 3 OA.No.611/2023 the investigation, the respondent CBI filed a Final Report / Charge Sheet u/s 173 Cr PC on 28.12.2017 in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases at Hyderabad u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988. Thereafter the Hon'ble III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad took cognizance of the offences reported vide C.C.No.02/2018.
II. The Hon'ble III Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad had transferred the above C.C. to the Court of Special Judge for Trail of CBI cases, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings dated 23.09.2019 to Visakhapatnam as the alleged offence is reportedly committed in Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh in respect of which area, the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction. A new C.C.No.35 of 2020 had been assigned by the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam and after transferring the said case to Kurnool another C.C.No.13 of 2022 was given.
III. The applicant was also issued with the impugned Memorandum dated 05.01.2018 for holding a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 covering the very same allegations which were the subject matter of the said criminal case. The applicant earlier filed OA.No.1006 of 2018 challenging the disciplinary proceedings as criminal proceedings on the same set of facts and circumstances vis-a-vis the same evidence were pending. This Tribunal had granted stay of disciplinary proceedings for a period of 4 OA.No.611/2023 six weeks vide order dated 12.10.2018 in OA.No.1006 of 2018 and the same has been vacated vide order dated 07.03.2023 in MA.No.72 of 2019 in OA.No.1006 of 2018.
IV. The applicant filed WP.No.26990 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking declaration of conducting trail in C.C.No.35 of 2020 pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam as illegal and quash the same. The said WP was filed on the ground that CBI, Hyderabad Branch lacked jurisdiction to conduct investigation in the Rayalaseema districts of Andhra Pradesh after the bifurcation of State of Andhra Pradesh.
V. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered a common judgment in WP No.26990 of 2021 and WP No.5441 of 2022 dated 13.04.2023 by holding that on the date of registration of FIR by the Hyderabad Branch of CBI as the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh was formed, there was a necessity for the express extension of CBI's jurisdiction by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh and in its absence the prosecution has to fail.
VI. In view of the above law determined by the Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that the CBI, Hyderabad without having jurisdiction conducted investigation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Once the investigation done by CBI, Hyderabad Branch was hit by lack of jurisdiction, all the proceedings which flows out of such investigation are non est in the eye of law. Thus, the impugned 5 OA.No.611/2023 Charge Memorandum dated 05.01.2018 which was issued to the applicant inter alia covering the FIR and other proceedings of CBI in pursuance of the CBI, Hyderabad recommendation is also hit by the ratio decided in the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble High Court.
VII. After the Hon'ble High Court rendering the above judgment declaring that the CBI Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to investigate the alleged complaint, the 3rd respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer to conduct the disciplinary inquiry in pursuance of the impugned Charge Memorandum. The applicant submitted a representation on 29.05.2023 bringing the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Special Judge for CBI cases, Kurnool closing the criminal proceedings vide order dated 24.04.2023 to the notice of the then Disciplinary Authority. However, the present Disciplinary Authority appointed another Inquiry Officer vide impugned order dated 31.07.2023. The applicant submitted another representation on 09.08.2023 once again bringing the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court quashing the criminal charge sheet, which render the Departmental Charge Memorandum also null and void for the aforesaid reason of lack of jurisdiction of CBI and requested to drop the Departmental charge memorandum.
VIII. Ignoring the aforesaid legal aspect of lack of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter, the Inquiry Officer(IO) issued notice dated 6 OA.No.611/2023 27.9.2023 directing the applicant to attend the preliminary hearing on 6.10.2023. The applicant appeared before the IO and submitted a letter on 6.10.2023 enclosing a copy of the earlier representation. However, the IO by recording the Presenting Officer's views that both judiciary and department proceedings are independent of each other and can proceed simultaneously as well as independently in view of umpteen Supreme Court judgments, the Inquiry Officer decided to proceed with the inquiry on a date to be communicated shortly.
IX. The said view of the Presenting Officer(PO) is based on a wrong perception of the point being agitated by the applicant. The applicant raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the CBI, Hyderabad branch to enter into the territory of Andhra Pradesh after the bifurcation of the State as Hyderabad Branch of CBI had jurisdiction prior bifurcation to conduct investigation to the extent of Rayalaseema and Telangana Districts of composite Andhra Pradesh. The views of the Presenting Officer which are in respect of simultaneous proceedings are uncalled for as criminal proceedings are already quashed on the point of lack of jurisdiction of the investigating agency. The disciplinary proceedings which are initiated in pursuance of the same investigation cannot be allowed to continue reversing the findings of the Hon'ble High Court. The alleged complaint was lodged to the CBI, Hyderabad which has no jurisdiction. After the CBI, Hyderabad conducting investigation, 7 OA.No.611/2023 based on the final report and a draft Charge Memorandum received from CI, the impugned Charge Memorandum was issued to the applicant. Hence, the respondent organisation which has not done any independent investigation, based on the material / evidence collected by the CBI, Hyderabad branch cannot proceed further. X. After the State Re-organisation Act, 2014 came into force, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State has been bifurcated into two States viz. State of Telangana and the residual State of Andhra Pradesh. The appointed day prescribed for the new States come into existence on 02.06.2014. The CBI, Hyderabad Branch has no control over Kurnool District of Andhra Pradesh after the said appointed day, where the alleged offence took place as the Central Government did not issue any notification u/s 5 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 notifying that the parts of the residual State of Andhra Pradesh are under the control of CBI, Hyderabad. As the CBI, Hyderabad function from Hyderabad which is in the State of Telangana, the said Branch of CBI ought not to have entertained any complaint against the applicant working outside the jurisdiction of CBI, Hyderabad. Hence, the FIR dated 09.05.2017 and final report of investigation suffers from lack of jurisdiction as the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.26990 of 2021 dated 13.04.2023 categorically held that there was no express extension of jurisdiction of CBI, Hyderabad by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The allegations in the Charge Sheet filed in Criminal Court and the allegations in the 8 OA.No.611/2023 Departmental proceedings in the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 21.06.2018 are very same and the evidence collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation along with proceedings prepared by the CBI are only the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings. Since the issue of jurisdiction goes to the foundation of the case and there is a declaration by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that in the absence of consent by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh as on the date of registration of the FIR, CBI, Hyderabad Branch cannot register the crime in respect of offence purportedly committed at Nandyal in Kurnool District, which is a part of Andhra Pradesh.
XI. The ratio decided in the said related criminal proceeding is equally applicable to the disciplinary proceedings as the same arose out of the very same Police investigation, which was hit by lack of jurisdiction. The Hon'ble High Court gave a categorical declaration that registration of the FIR and filing of Charge Sheet are clearly vitiated by the law and all the proceedings taken thereafter are bad in law. As the basic proceedings are not available, which are the foundation for the disciplinary case, the consequential disciplinary proceedings also would fall flat to the ground. As lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of the issue, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.26990 of 2021 is equally applicable to the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation of the applicant 9 OA.No.611/2023 and proceeding with the inquiry in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and is in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they stated that the applicant while working as a Superintendent of Central Excise, Nandyal Range, Kurnool District, AP, has allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10000 from Sri Arif, complainant of the case and Proprietor of the firm M/s 12 Brand Special Beedies, 29-66G, Tekke, Nandyal, Kurnool (Distt.) for processing the latter's request of surrender and deregistration of Central Excise Registration No.AHCPC1141KEM001 of the said firm. The Deputy Inspector General, ACB, CBI, Hyderabad had registered a complaint dated 9.5.2017 of Sri Arif wherein it was alleged that the applicant had demanded a bribe of Rs.10000 for processing his request for de-registration of Central Excise Registration No.AHCPC1141KEM001 issued to his firm earlier. Thereafter, the officers of CBI, Hyderabad had laid a trap on 9.5.2017 on the applicant in the presence of independent witnesses that during the trap proceedings, 20 phenolphthalein smeared notes of value of Rs.500/- each totally amounting to Rs.10000 given by the complainant as bribe to the applicant was recovered from the rear seat of the Innova Vehicle bearing No.AP09CK3396 where applicant had been made to sit during the course of the trap proceedings that the said amount was recovered in the presence of independent witnesses; that the detailed proceedings of laying of trap have been recorded in the First Mediators Report and Second Mediators Report; that the chemical test conducted by the investigation officers on both hands of the applicant and his right side pant 10 OA.No.611/2023 pocket and the rear seat swab of the aforesaid Innova vehicle showed positive results.
4. The respondents submit that after careful examination of the CBI Report of offences including copies of FIR, First and Second Mediators' Reports dated 9.5.2017, copies of relevant files and documents and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC as regards the allegations against the applicant and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority(DA) was satisfied that the applicant had prima facie committed offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, necessary sanction was accorded by him to the CBI to prosecute the applicant in the appropriate court of law for the said offences; that since the applicant was a public servant and who appeared to have mis-conducted himself which was in violation of Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 Government was required to initiate appropriate disciplinary action by way of initiating inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 read with the CCS(Conduct) Rules and thus, issued the charge memorandum to the said government servant in C.No.II/10-A/01/2017-CIU dated 05.01.2018. Since the applicant is posted to Hyderabad, the Inquiry Officer(IO) and Presenting Officer(PO) were appointed on 31.7.2023 and 02.08.2023 respectively by the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Seeking quashing of the impugned notice dated 05.01.2018, the applicant had earlier filed an OA.No.1006/2018 before the Tribunal which had stayed the disciplinary proceedings for a period of six months vide interim order dated 11 OA.No.611/2023 12.10.2018 to which the department had filed Misc.Petition for vacation of interim stay. The Tribunal had vacated the interim order vide dated 07.03.2023. The applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court which had quashed the FIR and charge sheet filed by CBI, Hyderabad. The applicant submits that since the charge memorandum dated 05.01.2018 was issued in regard to the FIR & Charge Sheet of CBI, Hyderabad, it has no sanctity and has become null and void and hence requested to withdraw the charge memorandum issued against him to which the respondents submit that it is not correct on the part of the applicant to draw conclusions by stating that all proceedings which flow out of investigation done by CBI, Hyderabad which was pronounced as hit by lack of jurisdiction, as non-est in the eye of law. Initiation of departmental proceedings is an independent procedure and not bound by the facts or outcome of the criminal proceedings contemplated by another investigating agency. There is no bar in holding Prosecution and Departmental Proceedings simultaneously and no rules or provisions are found to refrain from the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the respondents basing on the outcome or otherwise of criminal proceedings. Hence, the ground for relief put forth by the applicant is not correct and it is not sustainable for grant of stay of the departmental proceedings. As per Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, DoP&T Establishment letter vide dated 21.07.2016, 'it has been re-affirmed 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.' The above instructions of the DoP&T are reiterated by the Central Vigilance Commission vide Circular No.08/07/2018 dated 31.07.2018 wherein it was clarified that 'the Disciplinary Authorities are vested with responsibility 12 OA.No.611/2023 to ensure that employees under their control against whom criminal trial is pending are proceeded against forthwith for simultaneous departmental proceedings.' As per Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, DoP&T Establishment letter dated 1.8.2007, '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 is in spite of the serious charges levelled against him may have to be considered by the Competent Authority to proceed with the departmental action'.
6. The charge framed against the Applicant in the departmental inquiry is his misconduct in the form of lack of devotion to duty, lack of integrity and his conduct unbecoming of a public servant which are violative of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules ,1964. The charges framed in the Departmental inquiry proceedings are sought to be established on the basis of evidences which would prove preponderance of probability of the misconduct which is evident on record. It is not necessarily based on the recovery of the bribe money from the 13 OA.No.611/2023 Applicant alone. The disciplinary proceedings initiated, thus, are based on lesser degree of proof required than in criminal proceedings. The charge sheet filed by CBI in the Court is entirely under a different procedure of law and is to be proved on evidences which are in strict conformity to the law of evidence which is not the case in departmental proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts in a catena of judgments in the cases viz., Capt.M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679, Depot Manager APSRTC vs. Mohd Yousuf Miya in Civil Appeal No.15420-22 of 1996 arising out of SLP (C) 16386, 16868 & 16920 of 1996, State of Rajasthan vs. B.K.Meena (1996) 6 SCC 417, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. Vs. T.Srinivas in Civil Appeal No 4985 of 2004 arising out of SLP No.24698 of 2003, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Kushal Bhan AIR 1960 SC 806, (1960) ILLJ 520 SC, 1960 3 SCR 227, HPCL vs. Sarvesh Berry in Civil Appeal No.7980 of 2004 arising out of SLP (C) 24560 of 2003, Talluri Srinivas vs. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 2010 (174) DLT 537, Babulal Verma vs. Union of India: 2008 (3) MhLj 484, in K.G.Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and Anr.: Appeal (Crl) 935 of 2002 and R.Kumar vs. The Superintending Engineer in WP (MD) No.371 of 2013 had decided the question as to whether the disciplinary proceedings can be allowed to proceed when a criminal trial is pending on the same charges. In an identical case in OA.No.499/2018, the Tribunal had relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Girish V & Ors wherein it was observed that there is no legal bar to hold simultaneous proceedings and the Court has to draw a balance between need for a fair trial of the accused on the one hand the competing demand for expeditious completion 14 OA.No.611/2023 of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. In the present case, the departmental inquiry proceedings are based on entirely different approach and premise than the case of criminal trial. The CVC has issued instructions prescribing time frames to be adhered to by the disciplinary authorities. In view of the above, the respondents may be allowed to proceed with the departmental inquiry in the interest of fairness and justice and may dismiss the OA.
7. Heard Sri K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.Vijaya Bhaskar Babu, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The primary contention of the applicant is that since there is a declaration by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP.No.26990 of 2021 that in the absence of consent by the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh as on the date of registration of the FIR, CBI, Hyderabad Branch cannot register the crime in respect of offence purportedly committed by the applicant at Nandyal in Kurnool District, which is a part of Andhra Pradesh, the consequential disciplinary proceedings which arose out of the very same Police investigation also, would fall flat to the ground as lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of the issue. Hence, the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation of the applicant and proceeding with the inquiry in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet is illegal and arbitrary. While going through the pleadings, it could be seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in WP.No.26990 of 2021 that since there is absence of express extension of CBI's jurisdiction by the State Government, the CBI Court at Hyderabad could not entertain the case after 02.06.2014 as the required notification for a Special 15 OA.No.611/2023 Court under the PC Act was not issued. From the said order, it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court held the proceedings taken by the CBI as bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction but not acquitted the charged official(applicant) in the said proceedings which goes without saying that the applicant is still under cloud as he is not yet exonerated from the charges in the CBI Court. Even in the case of acquittal, the departmental proceedings need not be stopped since the parameters for the two proceedings and the rationale for the same are different. It is however necessary for the disciplinary authorities to consider the facts and circumstances of the case before taking up further proceedings. The nature and the burden of proof would mainly differ even if the same set of circumstances is taken up. Since the applicant had committed misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant thereby violated regulations of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) & 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the charge memorandum was issued on him by the respondents. The charges listed with charge memo relate to demanding bribe from a person seeking de-registration and surrender of Central Excise Registration of the firm M/s 12 Brand Special Beedies. These charges are grave in nature, even though there was a direction by the Hon'ble High Court of AP that the investigation by the CBI is non-est in the eye of law, it would not be desirable to set aside the disciplinary proceedings since this could impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. It would certainly be in the interest of administration and good governance, that the disciplinary proceedings are concluded expeditiously. 16 OA.No.611/2023 It is in the interest of good governance and administration that any charge of serious misdemeanour of this nature is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant to keep administrative machinery unsullied. It is certainly not in the interest of administration, that persons who are accused of serious misdemeanour are continued in the office indefinitely on account of delays in concluding the proceedings. It would also be in the interest of the delinquent officer to have a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings since his honour would be vindicated at the earliest possible moment, if he is not found guilty of the charges.
9. 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 the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Hon'ble Apex Court has itself summarized the conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of the Apex Court as follows:
i. Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. ii. If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
iii. Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of 17 OA.No.611/2023 the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
iv. The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
v. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.
10. In the case of Kusheshwar Dubey vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. 1988(4)SCC319, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
'The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent- employee to seek such an order of stay or injunction from the Court. Whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would then receive judicial consideration and the Court will decide in the given circumstances of a particular case as to whether the disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted, pending criminal trial. As we have already stated that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight- jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual- situation.' 18 OA.No.611/2023
11. The sum and substance of all the above judgments is that even in the case of pendency or otherwise of the criminal proceedings, the departmental proceedings need not be stopped since the parameters for the two proceedings and the rationale for the same are different. While the criminal proceedings seek to confirm about an offence committed and the punishments to be meted out thereon, the departmental proceedings would emphasise upon the misconduct of the delinquent and the need to discipline the servants in the respondent organisation. Therefore, it is obvious that in the interest of efficient administration, the department has every right to continue with the departmental proceedings. In the present case, there is no need to set aside the charge memorandum 05.01.2018 even though issued against the applicant in pursuance of the investigation of CBI Court which was held as bad in law by the Hon'ble High Court of AP.
12. Keeping the above in view, the present OA, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /ps/