Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1299 (RAJ)

UMRAO ALI v. R. S. R. T. CORPORATION

2001-08-20

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, S.K.SHARMA

body2001
Judgment ( 1 ) THE appellant is a driver in the Rajasthan state Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer (for short the Corporation ). He was served with the charge sheet on 27/03/2000 for having committed misconduct under Section 34 (M, P and Q) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation appellant submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 25/04/2000 and made a prayer to stay the enquiry proceedings on the ground that criminal case on the same charge was already pending against him, therefore, departmental proceedings could not be conducted simultaneously. It appears that when the evidence from both the sides were adduced, the appellant decided to approach the High Court and on 2/02/2001, writ petition came to be filed by the appellant with the following prayers: (I) to declare the departmental enquiry initiated vide charge sheet dated 27/03/2000, to be illegal and all subsequent proceedings including the charge sheet be quashed, (ii) the respondents be restrained from continuing the departmental enquiry against the appellant in respect of alleged incident of 27/11/1999, and (iii) any other order prejudicial order, if passed, during the pendency of the writ petition, may also be set aside. ( 2 ) LEARNED single Bench vide order dated 31/07/2001 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that appreciation of evidence in the criminal case and that in the departmental enquiry are quite different and thus it cannot be said that because the petitioner is facing criminal case on the charge which is subject matter of inquiry, the inquiry cannot be proceeded with. It was further observed in the order that the evidence of both the parties in the departmental inquiry was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments alone. The learned single Bench also observed in the order that bare reading of both the charges in criminal case as well as in departmental inquiry, it cannot be said that they are identical in nature. ( 3 ) MR. Ashok Gaur learned counsel appearing for the appellant made scathing criticism on the judgment of the learned single judge and placed reliance on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. We have also been taken through the documents appended with the writ petition. ( 3 ) MR. Ashok Gaur learned counsel appearing for the appellant made scathing criticism on the judgment of the learned single judge and placed reliance on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. We have also been taken through the documents appended with the writ petition. ( 4 ) IN M. Paul Anthonys case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court summarised and it is specifically analysed in para 22 of the said judgment at p. 1100 of LLJ:"22. (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 of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. " ( 5 ) IN view of the ratio of M. Paul anthonys case (supra), we have closely scrutinised the documents appended with the writ petition as well as the impugned judgment of the learned single Bench. . " ( 5 ) IN view of the ratio of M. Paul anthonys case (supra), we have closely scrutinised the documents appended with the writ petition as well as the impugned judgment of the learned single Bench. . ( 6 ) A look at the charge sheet dated 27/03/2000, appended as Annexure-J, with the writ petition, demonstrates that it is the misconduct of the appellant which is subject matter of departmental inquiry. As per charge sheet, the appellant was to stay with the vehicle at Devaliya Kalan in the night on 27/11/1999, it appears that defying the departmental orders, the appellant proceeded in the night from Devaliya Kalan towards Vijay nagar and collided the vehicle at a distance of 3 km. from Devaliya Kalan. Though in the charge sheet, it has also been incorporated that the appellant illegally and negligently plied the vehicle, but we are of the considered opinion that the allegations in the charge sheet are not the subject matter of the criminal case. In our opinion, the appellant has been charge sheeted for having flouted Section 34 (M. P. Q) of the standing Orders of the Corporation. ( 7 ) THERE is yet another angle, the appellant is not entitled to the relief. The appellant has approached the High Court after adducing the evidence in the departmental inquiry. Admittedly, he was charge sheeted on 27/03/2000 and he submitted reply in the month of April, 2000 but he approached this court on 2/02/2001 when the matter was posted for final hearing. Their Lordship of the supreme Court in M. Paul Anthonys case (supra) indicated that due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed and even if the departmental proceedings were stayed on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, they can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date and if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. , ( 8 ) IN the instant case, we have been told that charge in the criminal case has not been framed as yet and the criminal case is at the initial stage. , ( 8 ) IN the instant case, we have been told that charge in the criminal case has not been framed as yet and the criminal case is at the initial stage. ( 9 ) IN view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Bench. The appeal has no merit, It stands dismissed. .