Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bobbili Jagadeeswara Rao vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 26 July, 2021
OA No.683/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
OA/020/00683/2020
Date of CAV: 01.07.2021
Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
Bobbili Jagadeeswara Rao
S/o B. Krishna, Aged 47 years,
Occ : Senior Tax Assistant (TDS), (Group „C‟),
O/o Income Tax Officer, Siva Towers, Danavaipet,
Rajamahendravaram, E.G.Dt. A.P. ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. K. R. K. V. Prasad)
Vs.
1.Union of India Rep by
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
A.P &Telangana Regions, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS),
2nd Floor, SVR Plaza, Mogalrajpuram,
Vijayawada.
3. Sri M. Bharadwaja, Assistant Commissioner of IT,
(Re AC)(VU)-1(1)(1), Hyderabad. ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. CGSC)
---
Page 1 of 18
OA No.683/2020
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed in regard to simultaneous disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, when a criminal case is being adjudicated in the competent criminal Court.
3. Brief facts are that the applicant while working as Senior Tax Assistant in the respondents organization, an FIR bearing the number RC No. 15 (A)/2017 was registered on 27.9.2017 by CBI against the applicant, based on a complaint made by Sri P.Krishna Murthy, complaining about demand of illegal gratification of Rs.30,000, to close a Tax Evasion case.
Criminal Case no 3 of 2018 has been filed in the CBI Court Visakhapatnam. Based on the very same facts and circumstances, respondents have issued charge memo dated 27.2.2020. Aggrieved over the same, OA is filed.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that the charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are one and the same. Applicant is from the lower rung of the respondents‟ organization and has no authority to close a tax evasion case. Complicated questions of facts and law are involved and defence revealed in the departmental case will adversely affect the outcome of the criminal case. Therefore as per law, disciplinary proceedings have to be stalled till the criminal case is finalized. The constitutional protection available to the applicant has been violated by the impugned disciplinary proceedings. On submitting a reply to the charge Page 2 of 18 OA No.683/2020 sheet, respondents have appointed an inquiry officer and the applicant requested the disciplinary authority for stay of the departmental proceedings vide his letter 7.10.2020, which was not conceded to on 15.10.2020 and directed to appear before the inquiry officer. Prosecution sanction was issued on 19.12.2017 whereas the charge memo was issued in Feb. 2020 after a lapse of nearly 2 ½ years, implying that there was no urgency to proceed with the disciplinary case. Taking support of the DOPT and CVC memos, cited by the respondents, is wrong. CVC memo cited is defacto in favour of the applicant. Criminal case is not progressing due to ongoing corona pandemic.Applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in WP Nos. 10451 & 10471 of 2020 to further his cause. Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution have been violated.
5. Respondents while confirming facts in regard to filing of the Criminal Case 3/2018 in the CBI Court for demanding illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- in a tax evasion case, submit that the disciplinary proceedings issued on 27.2.2020 and the criminal case referred to are different. There is no bar to conduct disciplinary case when criminal case is pending. Action was taken in consonance with the instructions contained in DOPT memos dated 1.8.2007, 21.7.2016 and CVC circular dated 31.7.2018. When it is a case of illegal gratification, the facts and circumstances are bound to be the same. The claim of the applicant that his defence is at risk in the criminal trial because of the disciplinary proceedings has no merit. There was delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings as the applicant was transferred and, it took some time to appoint the I.O. and P.O. The delay per se cannot be the reason to ward off Page 3 of 18 OA No.683/2020 the proceedings. There are no complex questions of facts and law involved. Applicant is given all opportunities to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings wherein, Inquiry officer/ Presenting Officer were appointed on 22.7.2020 and hence, there is no violation of the constitutional protections available to him. Therefore, Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution have not been violated. In the case decided by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in WP Nos.10451 & 10471 of 2020, complicated questions of facts and law are involved and not in the instant case. Respondents cited the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in B.K. Meena case in support of their contentions.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I. The dispute is about conduct of simultaneous disciplinary proceedings based on identical facts and circumstances as stated in the CC No.3/2018 filed in the CBI Court. The prayer of the applicant is to keep in abeyance the disciplinary proceedings dated 27.2.2020 till finalization of the criminal case.
The essential facts are that the applicant while working as Senior Tax Assistant has ostensibly misused his position while dealing with the receipt and dispatch of mail of the respondents‟ organization, in particular,with reference to matters related to TEPs (Tax Evasion Petition) for contacting affecting parties to indulge in alleged corrupt practices. In one such case, the applicant was reported to have got in touch with Sri P.Krishna Murthy allegedly demanding Rs.30,000 as bribe towards an issue relating to TEP Page 4 of 18 OA No.683/2020 received in the name of his family member. Based on the complaint made by Sri P. Krishna Murthy, CBI laid a trap on 27.09.2017 and caught the applicant red handed while demanding and accepting Rs.30,000 as bribe, as per the pre-trap and post trap proceedings referred to in the charge memo and the Criminal proceedings. The defense of the applicant is that he is innocent and that he has no power to deal with TEPs. However, from a reading of the trap proceedings and other related material papers on record, it appears that the applicant has given an impression that he has exceeded his brief by being privy to the information about TEPs not only in regard to the case of the complainant‟s family member, but in respect of others too and supposedly used them to indulge in activities prohibited under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the charge memo dated 27.2.2020, giving an opportunity to the applicant to defend himself as per the Principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the applicant is that since the facts and circumstances in the disciplinary case and the criminal case are identical, the disciplinary case need to be stalled till the criminal case sees the light of the day. Besides, defense revealed in the disciplinary case may compromise his legal battle in the criminal case. It is these twin aspects which require a closer look to arrive at a fair and just decision.
II. Primarily we are of the view that the disciplinary proceedings are meant not only to penalize the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery faultless by getting rid of bad elements. Even the interest of the delinquent employee lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The hanging Damocles sword in the form of a Rule 14 charge sheet would not allow the concerned employee to be at peace with himself. Page 5 of 18 OA No.683/2020 The anxiety of the unknown outcome of the charge sheet will haunt him day in and day out till a final word is heard on the matter. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour would be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if found guilty, the penal consequences have to be inevitably accepted.
III. There is good authority to hold that departmental and criminal proceedings on the same cause of action can be instituted and prosecuted simultaneously. The authority rests on sound principles of judicial policy. The purpose of criminal prosecution and the object of departmental proceedings are entirely distinct. The criminal prosecution is instituted to check crime against the society at large and is intended to bring the offenders to justice. Criminal proceedings ensure that the society is purged of crime. At any rate, crime against the society cannot go unpunished.
IV Hon‟ble Apex Court in the State of Rajasthan Versus B.K. Meena and others, (1996) 6 SCC 417, observed that approach and objective in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The question determined in the disciplinary proceedings is whether the conduct of the delinquent employee merits imposing punishment on him under the applicable service laws, whereas in the criminal proceedings, the question always is as to whether the offences registered against the delinquent employee, are established and if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, mode of enquiry and the rules governing the inquiry and trial in both the proceedings are entirely distinct. Paragraph 17 of the judgment clarifies the distinction between the two in no uncertain terms, as under: Page 6 of 18 OA No.683/2020
"17. There is yet another reason. The approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings is 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 him under the Prevention of Corruption Act (and the Indian Penal Code, if any) are established and, if established, what sentence should be imposed upon him.The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial in both the cases are entirely distinct and different. Staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings, to repeat, should not be matter of course but a considered decision. Even if stayed at one stage, the decision may require reconsideration if the criminal case gets unduly delayed."
Going further, in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag Vs General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia and others, reported as (2005) 7 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the simultaneous continuance of departmental and criminal proceedings was permissible in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court distilled the aforesaid proposition of law by delineating the purposes, objects and the procedures of criminal and departmental proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus;
"...The two proceedings - criminal and departmental - are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'.
In regard to the difference, we find further elaboration in Hon‟ble Apex Court verdict in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others Versus Sarvesh Berry, (2005) 10 SCC 471, while reiterating that there is Page 7 of 18 OA No.683/2020 no bar in initiating simultaneous proceedings. It was observed therein that criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. In contrast, departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. The inquiry in the departmental proceedings relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. The strict standard of proof for applicability of Evidence Act stands executed. It would be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. 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. Each case required to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. Indeed taking cognizance of the principles enshrined in Capt. M. Paul Anthony, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under "14. That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing stay of the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of the criminal charge. As noted in Capt. M. Paul Anthony case where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with, so that the conclusion can be arrived at, at an early date. If ultimately the employee is found not guilty, his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the employer may get rid of him at the earliest."Page 8 of 18 OA No.683/2020
In the case of P. Swaroopa Rani Vs M. HariNarayana, reported in 2008 (5) SCC 765 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that there is no embargo against continuance of departmental proceedings merely on account of pendency of criminal proceedings and categorically held;
"11. It is, however, well-settled that in a given case, departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case."
V. However, whether the charge in the criminal case is grave and involves complicated questions of fact and law or not, will depend upon the nature of offence and nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation. The applicant is harping on the contention that his case is one of complicated questions of facts and law as well as his appearance in the disciplinary inquiry would compromise the defense in the criminal case, requiring the disciplinary inquiry to be kept on hold till the criminal case comes to an end. However, applicant has not elaborated as to what are the complicated questions of fact and law which require to be examined to stay the disciplinary proceedings. Applicant tried to elaborate on the complicated question of fact and law by stating that he is working in the lower rungs of the department and would never be in a position to close a tax evasion complaint received against an assessee and thereby abuse of official position by the applicant is an absurd allegation. Undoubtedly, applicant is from the lower rung with no authority to decide tax evasion, but one cannot gloss over the fact that he was actively involved in the corruption case registered, as is evident from the evidence collected by CBI Page 9 of 18 OA No.683/2020 during pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. The department transposed the Income Tax Officer, who was an accused in the FIR along with the applicant, as a prosecution witness and the said Income Tax Officer was not proceeded against in the criminal case as no criminal involvement on his part was revealed during investigation, as per the charge sheet filed by the CBI.
The applicant has relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V. - (2014) 3 SCC 636 in support of his cause. We have gone through the judgment, wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon its own judgments including the cases of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC 679, in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996 (6) SCC 417 andin Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699, has summarized the law on the subject by making the following observations:-
"12. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly."
In the case on hand, the applicant is facing the charges of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and a criminal case bearing the number 3/2018 has been filed in the CBI Court, Vizag. The case has not come up for trial for reasons of corona pandemic, as submitted by the Ld. Counsel Page 10 of 18 OA No.683/2020 for the applicant. One does not know as to when the case will be taken up for trial by the CBI court in view of the ongoing pandemic. Besides, proceedings in a criminal case are generally long drawn, since the offense has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt unlike in the departmental proceedings where preponderance of probability is the deciding factor. The applicant is the sole accused in the criminal case, in contrast to many other cases where the list of accused is large. From the perusal of material papers placed on record, we find that the facts are clear as to the stature of the applicant in the respondents organization, the alleged issue on which he has been framed, which, on the face of it, specifies unauthorized action beyond jurisdiction and the modus operandi adopted in indulging in activities infringing the PC Act as well as acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant. The post and pre-trap proceedings, as per the details on record, are clear. The applicant was proceeded in the disciplinary case for misconduct and for commission of cognizable offences under Section 120 B of IPC r/w.Sec.13 (1) (d) of PC Act in the criminal case. The proof of the criminal charges was dependent upon prosecution producing proof beyond reasonable doubt relating to the culpability of the applicant. In the departmental proceedings, the broad implication of the charge against the applicant while working as Sr. Tax Assistant in the respondents‟ organization, revolves around his failure to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence to ensure and protect the interest of the organization and for acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant. The charge in the disciplinary proceedings clearly relates to the improper manner in which the applicant performed the duties Page 11 of 18 OA No.683/2020 as Sr. Tax Assistant. Thus, we are of the view, that there are no complicated facts and law, as contended by the applicant.
VI. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt.M. Paul Anthony [(1999) 3 SCC 679 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 810] has evolved a principle that if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case, but still an exception has been created that the said principle cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings and due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. In addition, it was further held that departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial does not make any headway.To the same effect is the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena (supra), wherein it was reiterated that there was no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave but even the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter of course. The applicant has averred that he is a Senior Tax Assistant and therefore, has no powers to deal with TEPs. By saying so, implicitly applicant claims innocence. When the applicant is confident of Page 12 of 18 OA No.683/2020 his innocence, nothing should deter him to ward off the disciplinary proceedings and use the same as a fulcrum to leverage it to succeed in the criminal case. Indeed, when the question of fact and law being clear in the instant case, defense adopted in the disciplinary case can in no way compromise the defense in the criminal case.
VII. Further, it is a matter of deep introspection as to what impact the continuance of a person, who has come under the cloud for being accused of serious misdemeanor, on the organization, by allowing him to be under the cloud, awaiting the result of criminal proceedings by staying the disciplinary proceedings. It is the conduct of the applicant which has forced him to the situation he is in, and not the respondents. Therefore, restraining the respondents to give an opportunity to the applicant to defend himself in a disciplinary case is a moot point, which requires detailed consideration from the point of view of the organization and the individual. Delay, true to speak, serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course as held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court supra. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision has to be taken. Prejudice to defense in the criminal case by continuation of disciplinary proceedings may be a good ground for staying the latter, but then again it can be done in cases of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. 'Advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety' has to be determined in each case in the given facts. As observed in the preceding paras V & VI, there are no complicated questions of facts and law in the instant case and it is neither Page 13 of 18 OA No.683/2020 advisable nor desirable to not to allow the disciplinary case to proceed to its logical end.
Therefore, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the departmental proceedings will be unduly delayed if they are stayed to await the decision of the criminal court as the trial in the criminal court is in the infancy stage. In contrast, the departmental proceedings have progressed to the extent of appointing the I.O. and the applicant has been called upon to appear for the disciplinary inquiry. At the said stage, he has approached the Tribunal and as an interim relief, vide order dt. 04.11.2020 the inquiry was stayed for 6 months or till the criminal case is over, whichever is earlier. Subsequently, the same was extended on 15.06.2021 upon MA No. 449/2021 being filed by the applicant seeking stay of departmental proceedings. In the process, 9 months have elapsed from the filing of the OA and if the period is counted from the date of charge memo dt. 27.02.2020, it is nearly 1½ years and further procrastination of the case would neither be in the interest of the applicant nor that of the respondents.
VIII. The applicant cited the judgment in WP Nos.10451 & 10471 of 2020 delivered on 24.7.2020, wherein it was directed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana, taking into specific consideration clause 81 of the Postal Manual and complicated facts of law involved, to keep the disciplinary case pending for a period of one year, with a specific observation that the trial court has already examined 5 witnesses. In the said order, the Hon‟ble High Court also observed that the trial court should take steps for disposal of the criminal case against the petitioners therein as Page 14 of 18 OA No.683/2020 expeditiously as possible and further, observed that, if the criminal proceedings cannot be concluded within one year, the competent authority can review the situation and take decision to continue the disciplinary proceedings. The Hon‟ble High Court also observed that "However, staying of disciplinary proceedings pending criminal proceedings will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."
In the case dealt in the writ petitions, we respectfully observe that there were several accused in the criminal case. In the instant case, the trial is yet to take off in the CBI court and the applicant is the sole accused with no complicated questions of facts and the law as expounded in the previous paras. The specific Clause 81 of Postal Manual referred to in the writ petitions applies to postal employees and not to the case of the applicant, who belongs to the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court would not be applicable to the case of the applicant as the facts and circumstances are different.
IX. It is not out place to adduce that, later to Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited v. Girish V., Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Vs. Neelam Nag and another (2016) 9 SCC 491, dealt with a similar case of the nature in question, and has held as under:
'it is well settled that there is no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously.However, no straitjacket formula can be spelt out and the Court has to keep in mind the broad approach to be adopted in such matters on case to case basis. The contour of the approach to be adopted by the Court has been delineated in series of decisions.' Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment reiterated and reaffirmed the well settled principles that disciplinary and criminal proceedings can be Page 15 of 18 OA No.683/2020 conducted simultaneously. It is not desirable to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. It is only where case involves complex questions of law and fact that disciplinary proceedings may be stayed during a criminal trial. The aspect of the nature of charge in a criminal case being grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved, will depend upon nature of offence/ case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence/ material collected during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. Due regard has to be given to the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. In Neelam Nag's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court acceded to the contention of the appellant therein that pendency of criminal case against the respondent therein cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent therein. It would be appropriate to extract the relevant paragraph hereinafter:-
"12. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we accede to the contention of the appellants that the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent cannot be the sole basis to suspend the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent for an indefinite period; and in larger public interest, the order as passed in Stanzen's case be followed even in the fact situation of the present case, to balance the equities."
In Stanzen, Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed at para 12 of the judgment, as under:
Xxx Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.
In the instant case, we find the case to be not containing any complicated questions of law and fact and therefore, it is all the more Page 16 of 18 OA No.683/2020 necessary that the disciplinary case has to come to an early end, which we believe would serve the interests of justice. The disciplinary case is in limbo since February 2020.
X. Similar cases were dealt by the Hon‟ble High Courts of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh in Sayar Singh, S/o. Shri Hanuman Singh vs. Union of India on 3 December, 2020 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6249/2020 and in Shubham Thaku v State of Himachal Pradesh and ors on 14.10.2020 in CWP No.1418 of 2020 respectively, wherein the relief sought in identical circumstances was rejected.
XI. One another contention submitted by the applicant that there was delay in the issueof the charge sheet. The facts reveal that the applicant was transferred and therefore, some time was consumed in issuing the charge sheet and appointing the I.O/P.O. Delay in issue of the charge sheet would not in any way deflect the charges leveled, away from the applicant. Other contentions made by both parties have been gone through and found to be irrelevant.
XII. To conclude, in view of the aforesaid we need to observe that there are no complicated questions of fact and law involved in the instant case. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that even in cases where complicated questions of fact and law are involved the departmental proceedings cannot be delayed unduly. The judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana relied upon by the applicant would not be applicable to the case of the applicant as the facts and circumstances are different. Further, the charge memo was issued on 27.02.2020. When the case came up for admission hearing, the disciplinary inquiry was stayed on 4.11.2020 Page 17 of 18 OA No.683/2020 and nearly one and half years have lapsed since the issue of charge sheet. Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that disciplinary inquiry has to be completed in a period of 6 months or at the most in a year, in Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 958/2010 dt. 16.12.2015. Any further delay in the conduct of the disciplinary inquiry would not be in the interest of justice. Even in cases dealt by the superior judicial fora as in Stanzen and Neelam Nag cited supra, involving complicated questions of fact and law, the departmental proceedings were stayed for a period of one year and gave liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings if the criminal case was getting delayed. In the instant case, as an interim measure the disciplinary case was held over for nearly 9 months and on submission of the pleadings of both the parties, we found no complicated questions of facts and law involved. Therefore, for the said reason too, granting any further stay would be unreasonable. Hence, in view of the aforementioned circumstances, finding no merit in the case, we dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Consequently, Interim order stands vacated. MA 449/2021 stands dismissed.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 18 of 18