the office of a quasi judicial authority. He cannot be allowed to
abuse the process of Court. The Tribunal fell in grave error in
relying on the solitary paragraph of the judgment in Capt. M.Paul
Anthony (supra) instead of looking into the subsequent judgments
delivered by the Apex Court, clarifying the law laid down in the
case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony. Instead of reproducing the
decisions cited by learned A.G.P. for the petitioners, we would
quote following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
“8. …..What is, however, fairly well settled
and was not disputed even before us is that there is
no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary
proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously.
9. In A. P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya;
(1997) 2 SCC 699, this Court declared that the
purpose underlying departmental proceedings is
distinctly different from the purpose behind
prosecution of offenders for commission of offences
by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence
is launched for violation of a duty that the offender
owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed
at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.
The difference in the standard of proof and the
application of the rules of evidence to one and
inapplicability to the other was also explained and
highlighted only to explain that conceptually the
two operate in different spheres and are intended to
serve distinctly different purposes.
10. The relatively recent decision of this
Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao
(2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the
principles that are applicable in such situations
succinctly summed up in the following words:
“(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings
to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that
the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed
would be to ensure that the defence of the
employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced. But even such grounds would be
available only in cases involving complex
questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to
unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings. The interest of the delinquent
officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a
prompt conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings.
(iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on
simultaneously to the criminal trial, except
where both the proceedings are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common.”
13. …..It is also evident that while
seriousness of the charge leveled against the
employees is a consideration, the same is not by
itself sufficient unless the case also involves
complicated questions of law and fact. Even when
the charge is found to be serious and complicated
questions of fact and law that arise for
consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind
the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be
suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.
16. Suffice it to say that while there is no
legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary
proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously,
stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an
advisable course in cases where the criminal charge
against the employee is grave and continuance of
the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice
their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of
the charge is, however, not by itself enough to
determine the question unless the charge involves
complicated question of law and fact. The Court
examining the question must also keep in mind
that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely
especially where the number of accused arraigned
for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are
the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution.
The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance
between the need for a fair trial to the accused on
the one hand and the competing demand for an
expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary
proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this
Court to be in the interest of the employees.”
9. We are fully convinced that the law laid down by the
Apex Court as above is clearly applicable in the instant case. The
impugned decision rendered by the MAT is not legal and correct.
The MAT ought not to have taken lighter view in the case of
corruption by an Accounts Officer like the respondent who was
caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.500/.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6594/2014
State of Maharashtra,
...V E R S U S...
Raju Vishwanath Bhushanwar,
CORAM: A. B. CHAUDHARI & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ185
2. The State of Maharashtra has preferred the instant writ
petition against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed
by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original
Application No.755/2012 by which the MAT stayed the
departmental enquiry vide chargesheet dated 28.06.2012 till
Criminal Case No.13/2012 is decided.
3. In support of the writ petition, Mr. Ukey, learned A.G.P.
assailing the impugned order, vehemently submitted that there is a
clear cut error of law committed by the MAT by relying on the
decision in Capt. M.Paul Anthony.vs.Bharat Gold Mines Ltd; AIR
1999 SC 1416, which decision was, at later point of time,
explained by the Apex Court in several subsequent decisions. He
submitted that there is no straight jacket formula or rule anywhere
that if a criminal case is filed and it is pending, the departmental
enquiry should necessarily be stayed by the court of law. He
submitted that the respondent who was working as Accounts
Officer with the office of State Consumer Redressal Forum, Nagpur
was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of
Rs.500/. He had demanded it for releasing the security deposit of
the complainant. After the FIR was lodged by the complainant,
the offence was registered and the respondent was caught red
handed while accepting the amount of Rs.500/ and no other
amount of evidence is required to prove his guilt. According to
Mr. Ukey, such a person working with the office of a quasi judicial
authority namely; State Consumer Redressal Forum, cannot be
allowed to be relieved off the misconduct for major penalty on the
ground of pendency of the criminal case against him. He then
submitted that the decisions by the Apex Court in Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and others.vs.T.Srinivas; AIR 2004 SC
4127 and Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited.vs. Girish V.
and ors.; (2014) 3 SCC 636, clearly show that the tribunal
should not have made an order of stay of departmental enquiry.
He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned
order.
4. Per contra, Mr. Saboo, learned counsel for the
respondentoriginal applicant before the MAT, opposed the
present writ petition and submitted that the impugned order is
based on the decision in Capt.M.Paul Anthony (supra) and no
interference is required to be made. He then submitted that the
criminal trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act is fixed for evidence and, therefore, this court should not make
interference at this stage. He then submitted that the petition
itself was filed belatedly after about eight months and, therefore,
the same should not be entertained. Mr. Saboo then invited our
attention to a chart at Annexure A8 showing that the allegations
in the criminal case as well as in the chargesheet are the same
and, therefore, the MAT was right in staying the enquiry.
CONSIDERATION:
5. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at
length. We have perused the impugned order passed by the MAT.
It is not in dispute that on 29.04.2011 the respondent was holding
the post of Accounts Officer in the office of the State Consumer
Redressal Commission. The complainantAmol Jamnere had made
security deposit in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/ with the Commission.
Thereafter, he was entitled to refund of the said amount of
Rs.2,00,000/. He made an application for refund of the amount
that was deposited by him. The respondentAccounts Officer, in
his usual style demanded the bribe amount of Rs.500/ for
releasing the security deposit to him. Pursuant to the FIR lodged
by the complainant, he was caught red handed while accepting the
amount of Rs.500/ and accordingly, the chargesheet was filed in
the court. Thereafter, the departmental chargesheet was issued
to him since the allegations levelled against him were very serious
that the respondent, who is a person working with the quasi
judicial forum had indulged in demanding bribe amount of
Rs.500/ for releasing the deposit of the litigant. The money was
of the complainantAmol Jamnere and the respondent had
absolutely no business to ask for amount of Rs.500/ for giving
back his money. This is nothing but atrocious and sending wrong
signal about the institution. The misconduct committed by him is
very very serious and such a conduct cannot be allowed to go
unpunished. The institution does not need such elements.
6. The respondent, in an attempt to take advantage of the
pendency of the criminal case, merrily made an application before
the MAT on the ground that he would be required to disclose his
defence in the departmental enquiry. We have perused the
averments in the original application before the MAT carefully and
we find from the averments in the application that the respondent
has not at all disclosed how he would be prejudiced, what would
be the nature of prejudice and what defence would be prejudiced.
Thus, except for making bald statement, there is nothing in the
application as to how he would be prejudiced if he participates in
the enquiry and the departmental enquiry is completed. There is a
clarion call for eradication of the cancer of corruption. But, it has
assumed the character of a hydraheaded monster.
7. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the criminal
trial takes its own time. Not only that, then there is an appeal that
is provided. Should the departmental enquiry be kept in abeyance
even in the cases relating to bribery? We think, staying
departmental enquiry would be destructive of the movement for
eradication of corruption. Further, we cannot allow the process of
court to be abused in such a fashion when the respondent did not
show any possible prejudice and except making a bald statement
that he would be prejudiced, there is no material before the Court.
At any rate, as submitted by the respondent in his affidavitinreply
dated 10.08.2015, complainantAmol was examined on
28.07.2014 and was also been crossexamined. It appears that the
case is again fixed for evidence, which means that the trial is likely
to take much time since the complainant himself was examined
and crossexamined one year and two months before. We,
therefore, do not believe, as contended by Mr. Saboo, that the trial
is likely to be completed. Even otherwise, we do not think that
commencement of trial should mechanically result into stay of
departmental enquiry, particularly in the cases of the employees
caught red handed.
8. We, therefore, find that the respondent is working in
the office of a quasi judicial authority. He cannot be allowed to
abuse the process of Court. The Tribunal fell in grave error in
relying on the solitary paragraph of the judgment in Capt. M.Paul
Anthony (supra) instead of looking into the subsequent judgments
delivered by the Apex Court, clarifying the law laid down in the
case of Capt. M.Paul Anthony. Instead of reproducing the
decisions cited by learned A.G.P. for the petitioners, we would
quote following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
“8. …..What is, however, fairly well settled
and was not disputed even before us is that there is
no legal bar to the conduct of the disciplinary
proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously.
9. In A. P. SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya;
(1997) 2 SCC 699, this Court declared that the
purpose underlying departmental proceedings is
distinctly different from the purpose behind
prosecution of offenders for commission of offences
by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence
is launched for violation of a duty that the offender
owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed
at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service.
The difference in the standard of proof and the
application of the rules of evidence to one and
inapplicability to the other was also explained and
highlighted only to explain that conceptually the
two operate in different spheres and are intended to
serve distinctly different purposes.
10. The relatively recent decision of this
Court in Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao
(2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the
principles that are applicable in such situations
succinctly summed up in the following words:
“(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings
to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that
the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed
would be to ensure that the defence of the
employee in the criminal case may not be
prejudiced. But even such grounds would be
available only in cases involving complex
questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to
unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings. The interest of the delinquent
officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a
prompt conclusion of the disciplinary
proceedings.
(iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on
simultaneously to the criminal trial, except
where both the proceedings are based on the
same set of facts and the evidence in both the
proceedings is common.”
11. to 12 …..
13. …..It is also evident that while
seriousness of the charge leveled against the
employees is a consideration, the same is not by
itself sufficient unless the case also involves
complicated questions of law and fact. Even when
the charge is found to be serious and complicated
questions of fact and law that arise for
consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind
the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be
suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.
14. to 15. …..
16. Suffice it to say that while there is no
legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary
proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously,
stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an
advisable course in cases where the criminal charge
against the employee is grave and continuance of
the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice
their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of
the charge is, however, not by itself enough to
determine the question unless the charge involves
complicated question of law and fact. The Court
examining the question must also keep in mind
that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely
especially where the number of accused arraigned
for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are
the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution.
The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance
between the need for a fair trial to the accused on
the one hand and the competing demand for an
expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary
proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this
Court to be in the interest of the employees.”
9. We are fully convinced that the law laid down by the
Apex Court as above is clearly applicable in the instant case. The
impugned decision rendered by the MAT is not legal and correct.
The MAT ought not to have taken lighter view in the case of
corruption by an Accounts Officer like the respondent who was
caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.500/.
Attempt to nullify the rule of law through the process of court
must be nipped in the bud. We are of the view that the
departmental enquiry must be held and completed within a
stipulated period irrespective of the progress of the criminal trial.
Since the respondent has misused the process of court, we think
an order of cost will have to be made.
10. In view of above, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petition No.6594/2014 is allowed
with costs in the sum of Rs.5000/ payable by the
respondentRaju Vishwanath Bhushanwar to the office
of State Consumer Redressal Commission, Nagpur.
(ii) The departmental enquiry against the
respondentRaju Vishwanath Bhushanwar shall be
completed as early as possible and, in any case, within
a period of four months from today, failing which the
concerned officer shall be held responsible for failure
to act.
Rule made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment