Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

45. In B.K. Meena (supra), an IAS officer was charged with misappropriation of public funds in excess of a crore. The relevant tribunal having been moved, it stayed the disciplinary proceedings pending criminal trial. The Supreme having been approached by the State challenging the order of the tribunal, it had the occasion to consider all its previous decisions rendered on the point of advisability and desirability to proceed with a disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. Paragraphs 14 and 17 contain instructive discussions and we feel tempted to quote the same below:

"14. It would be evident from the above 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. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, it is emphasised, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can be enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above decisions as constituting a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that 'the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced'. This ground has, however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. The ground indicated in D.C.M and Tata Oil Mills is also not an invariable rule. It is only a factor which will go into the scales while judging the advisability or desirability of staying the disciplinary proceedings. 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. They hardly ever reach a prompt conclusion. That is the reality in spite of repeated advice and admonitions from this Court and the High Courts. If a criminal case is unduly 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 interests of administration and good government demand that these proceedings are concluded expeditiously. It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. 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. It only serves the interest of the guilty and dishonest. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasise some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above. ***

51. What follows from the decisions we have noted above is that although there is no bar in continuing parallel proceedings ~ departmental and criminal ~ on more or less same charges or even identical charges, the disciplinary authority ought to proceed with care and caution so that by insisting upon the charged employee to submit his/her written statement of defence to the departmental charge-sheet, he/she is not exposed to the risk of disclosing his/her defence in the criminal trial. Every human being would cherish living a life with dignity. It is axiomatic that even if an employee loses a job as part of a disciplinary action (for good reasons or even where there is lack of it), he does not forfeit his right to live with dignity. He might get employment elsewhere and earn a living. However, if taking advantage of a prior disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings the prosecution is allowed to build up its case to its convenience and to the detriment of the employee/accused before the criminal court, ultimately leading to a conviction being recorded and award of even the minimum sentence, not only could it amount to transgression of the imperative of a free and fair trial, an essence of the Right to Life entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution, but could also result in the accused to carry on his forehead the indelible mark of a 'convict' for the rest of his life (if such conviction were not appealed against or reversed). The punishment that might be imposed by way of disciplinary action for any slip in the performance of official duty on a comparative scale does not even match with a punishment that the State through its machinery imposes upon an accused upon launching a criminal prosecution for commission of offences against the society. It is for such reason, we are minded to hold, that the Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills (supra), B.K. Meena (supra) since approved in Mohd. Yousuf Miya (supra), P. Ganesan (supra), Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Limited (supra) and Neelam Nag (supra) has insisted upon a scrupulous guarding of the accused's fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, though express reference to it is not made, coupled with the condition that the case must involve complicated questions of fact and law.