Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. In the case of DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. M.G.VITTAL RAO 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the issue as to whether (2016) 9 SCC 491 (2012) 1 SCC 442 disciplinary proceedings can be held at the time when the delinquent employee is facing criminal trial, has been considered from time to time. Referring to STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. B.K.MEENA 5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it would be evident from the decisions that each of them starts with the indisputable proposition that there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. One of the contending considerations is that the disciplinary enquiry cannot be and should not be delayed unduly. So far as criminal cases are concerned, it is well known that they drag on endlessly where high officials or persons holding high public offices are involved. They get bogged down on one or the other ground. If a criminal case is unduly (1996) 6 SCC 417 delayed that may itself be a good ground for going ahead with the disciplinary enquiry even where the disciplinary proceedings are held over at an earlier stage. The interest of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. It is held that the disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of criminal proceedings. It is not in the interest of administration alone but it serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest too.