Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) In case of NICOLSON VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR1992 Supreme Court page 1981 The entire case law was review once again by the Apex Court in STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs. B.K. MEENA reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 13, wherein it was laid down as under :-

"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 no 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. (AIR 1960 SC 806) and Tata Oil Mills (AIR 1965 SC 155) is not also 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 consideration 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 advise 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 interest 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 misdemeanor 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 an 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 misdemeanor 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 emphasis 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. Sty 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."

In case of Batna Singh Vs. National Coal Development Corporation and another reported in 1969(1) LLJ page 664,itis observed as under :-

"It is true that the findings of the criminal court will not be binding in a Civil trial, but here the question is different; whether that finding will be binding on the department for the purpose of instituting a departmental inquiry after the decision in the criminal case is the point for consideration. Sometimes both the criminal trial and departmental enquiry go on. There is no bar against that. But, if a departmental inquiry is withheld till the decision of the criminal trial, then that decision should be taken into account and cannot be overridden by continuing the departmental enquiry thereafter on the identical charges. Furthermore, if a departmental enquiry is not at all launched but a criminal case is instituted and that ends in acquittal of the accused, it will not be proper for the department again to proceed on the same charges. The judgment in the criminal trial in the present case was certainly admissible in the civil court under the Evidence Act for the purpose that there was a criminal case of identical charge and it ended in acquittal of the accused. The other findings or the evidence led in the criminal trial are irrelevant, but the conclusion of the trial is admissible in evidence. In that view and following the principle laid down in the case mentioned above of the Madras High Court. I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the departmental enquiry on the charges of the identical nature in the criminal trial, was not justified."

In case of Kundan Lal Vs. Delhi Administration reported in 1976 Lab.I.C. page 811 has observed after considering various decision in respect of the question involved in the present petition as under :-

"The question has to be viewed as one of substance, not form,whether the delinquent office had been substantially acquitted on identical charges (s) ? This aspect would become clearer when reference is made to what I may call the middle view of this subject.

16. Such a middle position appears to have been taken by the Madras High Court in a series of decisions, to which detailed reference will be made presently, A Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Rajamanner C.J. and Venkatarama Iyer J. was concerned in Jerome D'Silva V. Regional Transport Authority. (AIR 1952 Mad 853) with the action of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling a licence for breach of conditions on the same allegations as were the basis of a prosecution against the lorry owner in question under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Act, 1950 for smuggling rice, which ended in acquittal. The anomaly of the person concerned being punished by one Tribunal on the footing that he was guilty of the offence and being honourably acquitted by another of the same offence was pointed out. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, however, considered that the Division Bench of Madras had enunciated the law in wider terms than permissible. A later decision of a Division Bench of Madras High Curt in S.Krishnamurth V. Chief Engineer, Southern Railway (ILR (1965) 2 Mad 373 = (AIR 1967 Mad 815) was referred to by Deshpande J. who spoke for the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It was an opinion written by Anantanarayanan J. for the Division Bench dismissing the appeal by Krishnamurthy, the delinquent officer, in that case against the decision of a single Judge who had held that he (the appellant) was not acquitted on the ground of not having received illegal gratification but on a technical ground, namely, a defect in the charge amounting to a material irregularity vitiating the conviction. The observations of the earlier Division Bench decision in Jerome D. Silva, were not held to be relevant. But a fuller discussion of the case law and the principles involved are to be found in a decision given singly by M.Anantanarayanan, Offg. C.J. in Saik Kasim v. Superintendent of Post Offices, (AIR 1965 Mad 502) which has not been noticed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court. After reviewing the previous decisions of the High Courts, the Supreme Court and of the English Courts, Anantanarayanan J. stated that the following principles emerged :-

"(i) Criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings on identical charges can continue simultaneously.

(ii) The decision rendered in the criminal case is not binding on the Enquiry Office who conducts disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, findings recorded in the departmental proceedings are not binding on the court as neither is the appellate authority of the other.

(iii) Normally on an honorable acquittal of the employe by the criminal court, the departmental proceedings, in difference to the findings recorded by the court, are not initiated but if the acquittal is based on a technical ground or the employee concerned is given benefit of doubt, the departmental proceedings on the same charges can still be initiated and if already pending can be concluded uninfluenced by the order of discharge or acquittal recorded in the criminal case on the said grounds.