9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1033 - HC - Indian LawsAppropriate Jurisdiction - whether the departmental proceedings can be permitted to continue in the wake of charges have been framed by the trial court or not? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the charges framed in criminal trial and Articles of Charge issued to petitioner in departmental enquiry would show that the petitioner has been implicated in both the criminal as well as departmental proceedings on similar set of facts. However this is bound to happen. When an employee is roped in a criminal offence the disciplinary authority by taking cognizance of such initiation of criminal offence proceeds with the departmental proceedings to take appropriate action as per the statutory rules governing the post an employee is holding. In case the offence is of serious nature which may impute the integrity / character of an employee then the department suspends the employee immediately and initiates further departmental proceedings. The reason for initiation and early conclusion of departmental proceedings in such cases seems to be three-fold (i) To weed out an employee whose integrity / character has been put to doubt prima facie on account of some criminal proceedings having been initiated against him/her; (ii) At the same time when an employee is suspended he/she is entitled to atleast half of the pay that it was drawing before being suspended and thus any inordinate delay in conclusion of departmental proceedings where charges are of very serious nature would unnecessarily entail burden on exchequer and thus will be against public interest; and (iii) The departmental proceedings is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service and thus its initiation and conclusion as expeditiously as possible is in public interest. In the present case it is not disputed that challan was presented in the year 2019 and charges were framed on 31.01.2020 (P-11) however till date no progress has been made in the criminal trial on account of one reason or the other. Although the delay in criminal trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner at the same time the department cannot be expected to wait endlessly for the trial to conclude - The petitioner being a judicial officer holding the rank of Additional District Judge and posted as Registrar (Recruitment) was required to have the highest standards of propriety as well as moral conduct. One of the documentary evidence that has come on record is by way of call detail record of petitioner Dr. Balwinder Sharma whereby 726 and 34 calls / SMSs have been made between him and accused-Sunita who incidentally was a topper in the HCS (Judicial) Preliminary Examination. This prima facie reflects towards a conduct not behoving the post that petitioner Dr. Balwinder Sharma was holding. Charge 4 of Articles of Charge would show that the disciplinary authority has also charged the employee for immoral conduct and thereby violating the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules 1966 Punjab as he had alleged developed intimate relations with Ms. Sunita. Further petitioner has also been charged for failing to maintain absolute integrity as expected from a judicial officer and thus has acted in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer. These charges by no stretch of imagination can be gone into or enquired or punished by the Criminal Court. Hence seen from this angle as well we do not find any reason to stay disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. There is no legal bar to hold disciplinary as well as departmental proceedings simultaneously however in view of the fact that all the three Courts below had exercised their discretion in favour of staying the ongoing disciplinary proceedings therefore directions were issued for expeditious conclusion of trial. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the departmental proceedings can be permitted to continue in the wake of charges framed by the trial court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the departmental proceedings can be permitted to continue in the wake of charges framed by the trial court: The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 06.11.2019, which rejected his request to stay the departmental enquiry until the conclusion of the criminal trial in FIR No. 194 dated 19.09.2017. The petitioner argued that both proceedings were based on the same set of facts and documentary evidence, and continuing them simultaneously would prejudice his defense in the criminal trial. He relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Capt. M Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd and others. Discussion on Case Law: The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to address the issue: - Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (1999) 3 SCC 679: The Supreme Court concluded that departmental proceedings and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously. However, if both are based on identical facts and the criminal charge is of grave nature involving complicated questions of law and fact, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings until the criminal case concludes. - State Bank of India vs. R.B. Sharma (2004): The Supreme Court emphasized that departmental proceedings should not be stayed mechanically and must consider the delay in criminal cases. - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Sarvesh Berry (2004): The Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings could continue as they pertain to misconduct or breach of duty, distinct from criminal culpability. - Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana (2006): The High Court held that departmental proceedings should not wait endlessly for the criminal trial's conclusion. - Ved Parkash vs. State of Haryana (2007): The High Court dismissed the petition to stay disciplinary proceedings during the criminal trial, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings should not be stayed as a matter of course. - Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish V. (2015): The Supreme Court reiterated that departmental proceedings could be stayed until common witnesses in both proceedings are examined in the criminal trial. Discussion on Facts: The court noted that the charges framed in the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry were based on similar facts. However, this is expected when an employee is involved in a criminal offense, prompting the disciplinary authority to initiate departmental proceedings. The court highlighted three reasons for the prompt conclusion of departmental proceedings: 1. To remove an employee whose integrity is in doubt. 2. To avoid unnecessary financial burden on the exchequer due to prolonged suspension. 3. To maintain discipline and efficiency in public service. The court observed that the criminal trial had seen little progress since the charges were framed in January 2020. The allegations against the petitioner involved leaking the HCS (Judicial) Preliminary Examination question paper, leading to charges under various sections of IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court emphasized that the petitioner, as a judicial officer, was expected to maintain high standards of propriety and moral conduct. The court found no justification for staying the disciplinary proceedings, noting that some charges, such as immoral conduct, could not be addressed by the criminal court. The court also considered the delay in the criminal trial and the need for expeditious conclusion of departmental proceedings to avoid undue financial burden on the employer. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the arguments for staying the departmental proceedings. The court emphasized the need for prompt conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in cases involving serious allegations, irrespective of the ongoing criminal trial.
|
