Delhi High Court
Ram Avtar Goel vs Mcd And Ors. on 23 September, 2005
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat
JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Page 1427
1. The petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution claims an order or direction restraining the respondents from going ahead with departmental proceedings pursuant to a charge sheet issued to him on 31st December 2003.
2. On account of certain allegations, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2000. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The petitioner was summoned in the year 2001 and thereafter charges were framed. The allegations in the criminal proceedings are, inter alia, that he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.40,000/-, as illegal gratification. The respondent MCD initiated the departmental proceedings and issued a charge sheet on 31.12.2003.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the charge sheet as well as the charges framed in the criminal proceedings are identical; the list of witnesses in both the proceedings are the same and the subject matter is also similar.
In this view, the continuation of the departmental proceedings would work to his irreparable prejudice and disadvantage in that the petitioner's defense in the criminal proceedings would stand compromised.
4. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines to say in Page 1428 cases where departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are going ahead simultaneously, it would be desir ble to stay the departmental proceedings, particularly where complicated issues of fact and law are involved.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in criminal cases particularly where an accused is arrested and made to stand trial for offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, upon the establishment of certain basic facts, the presumption of guilt operates under Section 20; a sanction is obtained under Section 19 and the entire proceedings acquire a special character since the investigation mechanism is different indeed even the Court trying the matter is different from the normal criminal proceedings; it is a designated Special Court. Having regard to all these features, learned counsel endeavored to persuade the Court to hold that the departmental proceedings in the case of the petitioner have to be stayed.
6. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Captain M.Paul Anthony's case the principles governing the issue were recapitulated after a review of the entire law. The Court held as follows :-
"a) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
b) 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 employees is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and the fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
c) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of the facts and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and the material collected against him during the investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
d) 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.
e) 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 pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at any 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."
7. A reading of the above would show that the Court did not rule that invariably principal department proceedings have to be stayed. Indeed, on the contrary, Page 1429 Propositions (c), (d) and (e) suggests that it is for the Court which considers the issues, (whenever it arises) about the weight to be given to the relevant factors. The public interest consideration in ensuring that departmental proceedings can, for instance, in given cases, even during the pendency of criminal cases, be given due weight as mentio ed in (d) and (e). In proposition (e), in fact it was stated even though criminal departmental proceedings may be stayed for sometime, nevertheless they can be commenced at a later date, if the criminal case prolongs for a considerable period of time.
8. Captain Paul Anthony's case was noticed in subsequent decisions (Ref State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. T. Srinivas ). In T. Srinivas (supra), the employee facing departmental proceedings was also facing charges of having committed offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court had emphasized that while examining a claim for stay of departmental proceedings, the seriousness of the charge relating to acceptance of illegal gratification is an important and relevant consideration.
9. In the present case, the criminal proceedings were initiated in the year 2000 when the FIR was lodged. Charges of course were framed later but the departmental proceedings were initiated in the end of 2003; the department apparently waited for the progress or outcome in the criminal proceedings and thereafter chose to issue charge sheet . In view of these, and the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that merely because the charges are under the Prevention of Corruption Act, they cannot be characterized as so grave or complicated as to warrant interdict of the departmental proceedings. The nature of the offence alleged is a relevant factor as observed by the Supreme Court. If a broad proposition canvassed by the Petitioner were accepted, in each case where the public official is charged with criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the departmental inquiry would have to be invariably stayed, a position neither tenable, nor warranted in law.
10. I am therefore of the opinion, in view of the facts and the law discussed earlier, that the relief claimed in these proceedings cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.