9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. - C.A. 7980 OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2004 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit stating that raid was conducted in the year 1988 and after completion of investigation, CBI requested the employer-appellant no.1 to sanction prosecution on 21.12.2000 and on 19.6.2001 sanction has been accorded to prosecute the employee for the criminal charges. Though CBI had filed the charge sheet there was no noticeable progress for four years. Employer initiated the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that continuation of the employee in service of the employer-Corporation would not be in the public interest. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no legal bar on departmental proceedings and criminal case continuing simultaneously even though they are based on identical or similar set of facts. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he known sources of income. The Criminal Court will have no occasion to deal with those charges. Further the criminal case is under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'PC Act'). It would not be proper to continue respondent in the employment of the appellants as it would not be in the public interest and in any event the respondent would be able to place facts relevant to all the charges in the departmental proceedings. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent-employee would be required to disclose its defence and in any event charge no.1 is not covered by any of the provisions of the Rules and the departmental authorities have no jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riminal case. In paragraph 22 conclusions which are deducible from various decisions were summarised. They are as follows: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being applicable to a public servant. How the assets were acquired and from what source of income is within the special knowledge of 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. As noted in Capt. M. Paul Anthony's case (supra) where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
