Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) It is the contention of the applicant that the respondents did not contest the said order, thereby it attained finality. Therefore, no departmental proceedings under the impugned proceedings on identical charges as that of the criminal proceedings are maintainable. Despite the above order of this Tribunal and in utter disregard to the same, the respondents issued the impugned notice dt. 19.09.2022 directing the applicant to participate in the departmental proceedings. On receipt of the said notice, the applicant submitted a representation to the Inquiry Officer on 07.10.2022 with a request to defer the enquiry basing on the judgment of this Tribunal in the earlier OA No. 811 /2022. Having left with no other option, the applicant filed this OA.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued on the point that the respondents in their reply have admitted that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings are based on identical charges and on the said admission of the Department, the applicants' cases are covered under the order of this Hon'ble Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and therefore, the respondents Department has to maintain some judicial discipline. Therefore, when the applicants have approached 13 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch this Tribunal challenging the notices impugned in the instant OAs viz., OA No. 686/2022 & 210/2023, by way of interim relief, this Tribunal has stayed the inquiry. However, in OA No. 707/2022, vide order dated 27.10.2022, this Tribunal did not grant interim stay and therefore, WP No. 40886/2022 was filed by the applicant, wherein similar interim order was directed to be maintained till the Tribunal decides the case. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the OAs.

13. Admittedly, a trap was laid by the officers of the CBI,ACB, Hyderabad on 07.03.2017 against the applicants and others on the basis of source complaint that the applicants and others working in Anti Evasion Wing, Hyderabad II Commissionerate, Hyderabad indulged in corrupt practices and are collecting illegal gratification regularly and they demanded bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- from one Sri Jagadish Prasad Sarada of M/s. KM Plastic and Sri G.Gopal Krishna Murthy, the applicant in OA 686/2022 was caught red handed on 07.03.2017 while accepting part bribe amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The applicant in OA 707/2022 came to be arrested on 08.03.2017/09.03.2017 and released on bail on 31.03.2017/18.03.2017. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicants exhibited lack of devotion to duty and failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of Government servants. Taking cognizance of the same and to enforce discipline and to investigate the level of integrity of the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority, as mandated under the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 issued charge memo dt. 20.01.2021 against the applicant in OA 686/2022. The other applicants were issued with charge memos dated 02.02.2021 and 05.03.2021. Against the said charge memos, the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 811 of 2021; 738/2021 & 701/2021, wherein the applicants' main plea was that the disciplinary authority issued the charge memos with the identical charges as that of the charges levelled in the 18 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch criminal proceedings and therefore, the respondents cannot proceed with the departmental inquiry till the conclusion of the criminal cases before the CBI court. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble of the Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony and the subsequent judgments and considering the statement of imputations, this Tribunal opined that the charges in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings seem to be identical. Therefore, this Tribunal vide its orders dt.16.02.2022 in OA 701/2021 & 811/2021 directed the respondents to keep the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicants in abeyance for a period of six months or till the evidence is completed in the criminal cases, whichever is earlier and after the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. In fact, vide order dt. 01.12.2021 in the OA 738/2021, this Tribunal stayed the departmental proceedings only for a period of six months, giving liberty to the department to review and take decision thereafter in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents, after six months period from the date of the orders in the earlier OAs, have issued notices to the applicants to appear before the IO for hearing on the scheduled dates. Aggrieved by the said notices, the applicants have approached this Tribunal impugning the notices in the present OAs mainly harping on one portion of the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. "After the criminal case is decided, the parties are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law". It is further urged by the applicants that when the order of this Tribunal has been accepted by the respondents without challenging the same before the High Court and same attained finality, the respondents' action is contrary to law.

"14.1 This Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 referred to some decisions on the aspect of stay on disciplinary proceedings and observed :-
"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 20 of 27 OA 686/2022 & batch 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 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. ..."