Madhya Pradesh High Court
Food Corporation Of India vs Kirti Sagar Mishra on 12 August, 2024
1 WA-1753-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 12 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1752 of 2023
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
VINOD KUMNAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senor Advocate with Shri Arpit Agrawal - Advocate
for respondent.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1753 of 2023
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
KIRTI SAGAR MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Shri Arpit Agrawal - Advocate for
respondent.
ORDER
Per: Vinay Saraf, Judge
1. This order will decide W.A. No.1752/2023 and W.A. No.1753/2023 as the common issue is involved in both the cases and the facts of the cases are also similar.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from W.A. No.1752/2023.
3. Heard the parties for the purpose of final disposal of writ appeals with their consent.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 17-08-2024 11:17:232 WA-1753-2023
4. Appellant-Vinod Kumar Singh was posted as Depot Manager in Food Corporation of India, Bhopal, who had been trapped by CBI, Bhopal and caught red-handed upon the allegation of demand and receipt of bribe from one Shri Kishan Lal Gurjar, Manager of M/s. R.B. Agro Milling Pvt. Ltd., Bina, District Sagar. The appellant of W.A. No.1753/2023 Shri Kirti Sagar Mishra posted as AG-II was also trapped in the same incident. After receipt of complaint that appellants have demanded bribe amount of Rs.85,000/- from complainant Shri Kishan Lal Gurjar, a trap was led by team of CBI on 12.03.2019 and appellants were caught red handed. CBI filed the charge-sheet against appellants after obtaining prosecution sanction from the competent authority for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal, which is pending.
5. Getting the information of the commission of aforesaid offence, FCI who is the employer of appellants also initiated departmental enquiry against the appellants upon the allegation of demand of bribe and receipt of money from the complainant. The departmental enquiry is also pending against the appellants.
6. The appellants approached to this Court by preferring W.P. No.14190/2020 (Vinod Kumar Singh vs. FCI and another) and W.P. No.14193/2020 (Kirti Sagar Mishra vs. FCI and another) seeking the stay of the departmental enquiry on the ground that the criminal case is also pending upon the same set of facts and allegations as well witnesses proposed in the departmental enquiry are the material witnesses in the criminal trial and if the departmental proceedings are not stayed, the appellants will suffer prejudice in their defence.
7 . Learned writ court after considering the allegations levelled against the appellants in criminal case as well departmental enquiry and after considering the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in the matter Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another, (1999) 3 SCC 679 , Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish V. and others, (2014) 3 SCC 636 and judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.158/2022 (Good Corporation of India & others vs. Harish Prakash Hinunia) passed the impugned common order by which decided both the writ petitions and held that, taking into consideration the nature of charges, departmental proceedings ought to have been kept in abeyance and allowed the petition by keeping the departmental Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 17-08-2024 11:17:23 3 WA-1753-2023 proceedings in abeyance for a period of 12 months from the date of order with the stipulations that if criminal trial is not completed within a period of one year, the employer shall be at liberty to seek leave of the Court to proceed with the departmental enquiry further and further liberty was granted to the employer to approach the Court if there is non-cooperation by the employees in the trial.
8. Assailing the order passed by the learned writ court, employer i.e. FCI has preferred the present writ appeal mainly on the ground that the nature of criminal trial and departmental proceedings are not identical and for this reason both may continue simultaneously. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in a trap case led by CBI, same is required to be decided by the trial Court on the strict evidence, which should be beyond any doubt whereas in departmental charge-sheet the charges are of misconduct and bringing the Corporation disrepute and it has to be decided on the preponderance of evidences and therefore, there is no complexity involved and both the charges are to be proved on different pedestal. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned writ court.
9. This Court by order dated 8.11.2023 and 20.11.2023, stayed the order passed by learned Single Judge on 25.7.2023 and consequently both the proceedings are going simultaneously.
10. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Agrawal appearing on behalf of the respondent/employee submits that the genesis of criminal trial and departmental enquiry are one and same and both the proceedings were initiated on the basis of alleged demand of bribe and receipt of bribe amount, therefore, the contention of appellant that the proceedings are different, is not correct.
11. This Court by order dated 01.08.2024 issued directions to the respondents to produce the deposition and cross examination of the witnesses who have been examined in departmental enquiry as well as before the criminal court. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court on 01.08.2024, respondent has submitted the deposition of the witnesses who have been examined in the departmental proceedings as well as in the criminal trial and also filed the list of witnesses in a table form to demonstrate that who has been examined in the case.
12. As per the respondent in the department enquiry, Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Manager FCI, Smt. Pushplata Sharma, AGM, FCI, Shri Omprakash Meena and Shri Vijay Kalu Rajbhog independent witness have already been examined and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 17-08-2024 11:17:23 4 WA-1753-2023 cross examined but except Shri Vijay Kalu Rajbhog, others are not the material witnesses. It is further submitted that material witnesses i.e. staff of complaining firm Shri Shankar Lal Kulvasra and Shri Kishan Lal Gurjar have not been examined till today. However, Shri J.J. Damle, DSP (CBI) and Shri R.K. Tank, CBI Inspector have been examined but their cross examination are still pending. Similarly, in the criminal trial, as per the respondents, Shri R.K. Chaturvedi, Executive Director, FCI and Shri Abhishek Yadav, General Manager, FCI have been examined but they are not the material witnesses and have deposed in respect of grant of prosecution sanction of the appellants. In the criminal trial, staff of complaining firm Shri Shankar Lal Kulvasra has also been examined but his cross examination is still pending.
13. As per respondents in criminal trial, statement of Kishan Gurjar (complainant), J.J. Damle, DSP (CBI), R.K. Tank, CBI Inspector have not been recorded. Similarly, independent witnesses Shri Omprakash Meena and Shri Vijay Kalu Rajbhog were also not examined in criminal trial, however, their statements have already been recorded in departmental proceedings.
14. In the conspectus of above discussion and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited (supra) and by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Harish Prakash Hinunia (supra), in the opinion of this Court, learned writ court has not committed any error or infirmity in restraining the employer from proceedings with the charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry for a period of 12 months from the date of order as both the cases are on the basis of commonality of charges, proposed witnesses and proposed documents and factual and legal complexity involved in both the trial are also same. The impugned order passed by learned writ court does not require any interference.
15. However, before parting, this Court cannot leave the employer in a lurch of uncertainty due to bleak possibility of early conclusion of criminal trial. It is well known that criminal trial especially under the Prevention of Corruption Act in our Criminal Justice System ordinarily takes a long time to conclude. Therefore, this Court cannot turn a blind eye towards this glaring fact, and thus, modifies the order of learned Single Judge to the extent indicated below:-
(i) The departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six months from the next date before the trial Court.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 17-08-2024 11:17:23
5 WA-1753-2023 However, the employer shall be at liberty to approach this Court by filing an appropriate application for enabling the employer to proceed with departmental enquiry subject to satisfying this Court that the delay in criminal trial is for reasons not attributed to the prosecution.
(ii) With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, present W.A. No.1752/2023 and W.A. No.1753/2023 are disposed of.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
irfan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD IRFAN
SIDDIQUI
Signing time: 17-08-2024
11:17:23