Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
K Suresh Kumar vs Dept Of Posts on 17 March, 2020
ae CE ON TRAL ADMINISTRATIV a HYDERABAD BEN OAS TSA 2OTe & MASP OATS HYDERABAD, this the 17" Hon'ble Mr. distice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman Hon'ble Mr. GV. Sudhakar, Adin, Member K. sure ah EK nl pe abot x0 VeUTS, ee: Postal Assistant (By Advoeate: Dr. A. Kagha Kamar} errs: MAPS. New Det Ais tf, The Chief Postmaster General, bs Telangana Circle. aed ¥ derabad He Sadan AQ HOP "4 mendes m ati ot er Foes, 6. The dint Mion "Ty 3 ; Me TRAXS &dalflkasiiven Beg, Ne Be tay f°GG fy Advocaic: Mr. &.V. Mallikarjune Raa, Se PO io CO) -- _ Gd 18st QRAL ORDER
PER HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE LINARASIMHA REDDY, CHAIRMAN Applicant joined the service in the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts. He discharged the duties of particular nature, in the context of the exercise undertaken during the demonetization process. Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) registered a case in 2016 showing the applicant as an accused alleging offences punishable under different Sections of Indian Penal Cede and Preventian of { Corruption Act. On its part, Department issued a charge memorandum dated 18.01.2019 under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal} Rules, 1965. Applicant is seeking relief in the form of a direction to the respondents to defer the disciplinary proceedings til the criminal case, which is pending before the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad, is disposed of. Applicant contends that the nature of allegations in the criminal case on the one hand and the disciplinary proceedings on the other hand, are one and the same. He contends that in case disciplinary proceedings are continued, he would be compelled to disclose his defence which, in turn, would be detrimental to the stand which, he may fake, in the criminal case.
ied 2 x eS a eboges.
ihe 28aer9
2. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed Counter affidavit js filed. It is stated that the charges are very serious in Nature and the purport of the charges in the criminal case on one hand, and the disciplinary proceedings an the other hand, are substantially differant. According to them, while in the criminal case, as Many as 52 witnessas were cited, in the disciplinary proceedings, only 12 of them were cited. According to them, the Standard of proof in the criminal case on ane hand and the disciplinary proceedings on the other hand are different, it is stated that while in the former, it is proof beyond doubt, in the latter, it would be sufficient to establish the charges to the satisfaction of the Inquiry Officer, 3, We heard Mr. B. Payan Kumar representing Dr. A. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.8him Singh representing Mr. RAV. Malikariuna Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
4. The effort of the applicant is to get the disciplinary proceedings deferred til, the criminal case, that fs pending against him js decided, it is not uncommon that the Tribunal or the Courts grant rellef in thet farm, in case it is found that the allegations in both the cases are identical and even the evidence that Is sought to be adduced in bath the proceedings, is the same. However, much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The leading authority on this, is tbl SII NY, a ne SSSR, ;
e ASS GA INET Y the fudgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in MLPaoul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and anether; 1999 SCC (L&S) 810. Their Lordships .
held as under:
"24 XNNKKX o-KXMXNX. «OAS polnted out sarlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, "the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom". The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, an a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. in this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a fudicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex parte departmental proceedings to stand.
35. Since the facts and the evidence In both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which fs usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.
36. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the Division CAA LEME Sench of the High Court is set-aside and that of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it purports to allow the writ petition, is upheld. The learned Single Judge has also given liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings. fr the pecullar circumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court in 1987, we would not direct any fresh departmental enquiry to be appeiant shall be reinstated forthwith on the past of security Officer and shall also be paid the entire arrears of salary, together with all allowances from the date of suspension til his reinstatement, within three months. The appellant would alsa be entitled to his cost which is quantified at Rs.15,000,"
5. In the instant case, the charge in the criminal case is referable to various acts and omissions on the part of several employees, inchiding the applicant. The narration of events runs in to about 13 pages and as many as 101 documents and 52 witnesses are cited. in the corresponding departmental proceadings, only 12 witnesses are cited, The charge in the disciplinary proceedings is typical to the applicant. The rale attributed to him, in the process of demonetization, the amount of cash handled, and nature of activiNies undertaken by the applicant, are mentioned. When such js the discrepancy, it is difficult to assume that the purport of the proceedings in the criminal case on one hand and the disciplinary proceedings on the other hand, is the Same, bpp PRELER (i 183/19 itis fairly well settled that the standard of proof that is required in both cases is substantially different. For example, if any important witness turns hostile In a criminal case or some one who is acquainted ina particular event is not examined, they may turn out to be fatal the criminal case, in contrast, in the disciplinary proceedings, we ardly come across the witnesses being declared as hostile. When the events are borne out by the record, the oral evidence hardly matters The charges framed against the applicant are very serious in nature oot ard atrae> Ke 's> ~~ 2 ~, and specific. Further, the number of persons involved in the criminal case, is huge, ae.
' ty aor' at 8 me ot eT Ep wre we Se Z. Therefore, we do not find any basis to defer the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, til completion of the proceedings in the criminal case g, The OA ts, therefore, dismissed 9, There shall be no arder as to costs &