Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheshdhar Badgaiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 WP-26534-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 26534 of 2021
(SHESHDHAR BADGAIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-12-2021
Shri Teekaram Kurmi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Maneesh Kholiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
This petition has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 28.11.2020 (Annexure P-10) whereby Assistant Commissioner Cooperative, District Katni has imposed certain recoveries on the delinquent employees of the fair price shops and has also directed for registration of FIR besides undertaking disciplinary action under service jurisprudence.
Petitioner is also aggrieved of order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the Principal Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Bhopal directing the Collector, Katni to lodge FIR against the Lead Manager, Society Manager and Salesman.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical matters Coordinate Bench as an interim measure directed not to take further coercive action against the petitioner in pursuant to order dated 28.11.2020.
Learned Panel Lawyer in his turn submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order inasmuch as disciplinary proceedings are distinct and different from criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that once it has come on record that some cognizable offence was committed by the petitioner then two proceedings will operate in different fields.
Learned Panel Lawyer supports the action.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 has summed up that both departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can run as parallel proceedings and both can proceed simultaneously though separately. It has further held that if, however, both are based on identical or similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, the departmental proceedings should Signature Not Verified SAN be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. It is also held that even if the Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.12.10 17:29:18 IST 2 WP-26534-2021 departmental proceedings are stayed, they should be resumed even if the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed.
Similarly, in case of Kusheshwar Dubey Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors, AIR 1988 SC 2118 , it is held that there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken.
Orissa High Court in case of Bhimsen Gochhayat Vs. Regional Manager, Bank of India, 1995(71) FLR 915 has held that there is a cardinal difference between a criminal proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding. The dominant purpose of a criminal proceeding is to achieve the protection of the society at large, and the public, while that of the disciplinary proceeding is purity and efficiency of public service. It is further held that the fields of operation of the two proceedings are quite different and independent.
Thus in view of said legal pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court since law is settled that the purpose of a criminal proceeding is different from that of the disciplinary proceeding, and both can proceed simultaneously though separately, there appears to be no impediment in executing the impugned order dated 28.11.2020 and the reminder as contained in communication dated 01.09.2021, facts which have not been brought to the notice of Coordinate Bench and therefore, interim order being distinguishable on its own facts, is not binding, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.12.10 17:29:18 IST