2004 (12) TMI 661 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case? Held that - In cases involving Section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C. Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression known sources of income is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused. Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of acquisition. He has to satisfactorily account for the same. Additionally, issues covered by charges 2 and 3 cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in the criminal case. That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing stay of the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of the criminal charge. Where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with so that the conclusion can be arrived at an early date. If ultimately the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty the employer may get rid of him at the earliest. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality of judgment setting aside departmental proceedings until conclusion of criminal charge.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the legality of a judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court which halted departmental proceedings until the criminal charge was resolved. The case involved an employee of a Government of India enterprise who faced charges of possessing disproportionate assets. The High Court found that the charges in the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were related, and it directed a stay on the departmental proceedings. The employer argued that the charges in the criminal case were distinct from those in the departmental proceedings, and the employee could present relevant facts in the departmental proceedings. The Court emphasized that criminal prosecution is for violating public duty, while departmental proceedings aim to maintain discipline in public service. It noted that both proceedings can run simultaneously unless the criminal charge is grave and involves complex legal issues. The Court referred to previous judgments to support its analysis.

In the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court highlighted that the burden of proof lies on the accused to show that assets are not disproportionate to known sources of income. The Court clarified that the known sources of income refer to authorities' knowledge, not the accused's. It emphasized that the accused must explain the source of acquisition in the criminal case, which is not required in departmental proceedings. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in staying the departmental proceedings, as delay in the criminal case should not halt the departmental proceedings. The employer was permitted to continue the departmental proceedings while assisting in expediting the criminal trial.

The Court emphasized that departmental proceedings should not be unduly delayed, even if stayed due to a pending criminal case. It outlined guidelines from previous cases, stating that departmental proceedings and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously unless the criminal charge is grave and complex. The Court highlighted that issues related to charges distinct from the criminal case cannot be adjudicated in the criminal trial. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, permitting the employer to continue the departmental proceedings while urging expeditious resolution of the criminal trial.