Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 77 (MP)

M. P. Sharma v. District and Sessions Judge

2002-01-22

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner's prayer in the writ petition is to stay the proceedings of the departmental enquiry till the conclusion of trial by the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jabalpur in Criminal Case and further direction to supply certified copies to him. The petitioner was holding charge of Nazir of Malkhana in District Court, Jabalpur. Before one and a half years of his retirement he was asked to hand over the charge of Malkhana to Shri Anjani Prasad Mishra. He only partially handed over the charge, then proceeded on leave and before the date of superannuation he did not complete the formality of handing over the charge. Departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. The petitioner retired on 29-11-1997. He was issued a charge-sheet on the same day. As many as seven charges were labelled against him not to hand over the charge, depositing the amount in excess, not keeping properties in proper condition for enabling their identification, certain properties were not found in Malkhana, not handing over the entire charge and the goods. Thus the petitioner was labelled charge of gross misconduct and gross negligence which is violative of Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Service Conduct Rules-1965 punishable under Rule 10 of M.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 2. First Information Report was also lodged on 7-8-1999 with respect to the missing of foreign liquor and other properties. Challan has been filed and this case is pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner was arrested in that case. Charges have not yet been framed. The offence labelled against him is under section 409, Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fairness requires that departmental enquiry should have been stayed by the Enquiry Officer till the conclusion of criminal trial. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners' case may be seriously jeopardized as the petitioner will have to disclose his defence which may jeopardize his defence of charges in the criminal case. The learned counsel places reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others, 1997 (2) SCC 699 . 3. The learned counsel places reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others, 1997 (2) SCC 699 . 3. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, I am of the opinion that the charges labelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry are such which may be looked into properly on departmental side. The main charge against the petitioner is that in spite of clear and categorical orders passed to hand over the charge, he did not hand over the charge. Then he proceeded on leave and he requested for extension of service to hand over the charge. In the case of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf and other, (supra), the decision in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena, 1996 (6) SCC 417 , was considered by the Supreme Court in which their Lordships laid down that in grave cases, the enquiry should be permitted to be completed as expeditiously as possible. Otherwise, the administration would be jeopardised. In my opinion, the facts in the departmental enquiry which are required to be proved are not to be put up before the criminal Court. The scope of criminal charge is different. The burden of proof in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case is different, the scope of departmental enquiry appears to be limited as to not handing over the charge in spite of the order and not keeping the articles in proper conditions so as to enable their identification and the question which is to be gone into is whether the entire charge was handed over or not and charge was not handed over of articles. Scope of departmental enquiry is different from that of criminal trial where the charge under section 409 is required to be proved. The evidence is not going to be same. Conviction or acquittal in criminal case is not going to affect the departmental enquiry and its outcome. The decision of departmental enquiry is based on not keeping articles properly, not handing over the charge of Malkhana, not following order, going on leave. The departmental enquiry has to be completed expeditiously. The case is of such a nature which cannot brook delay. The Apex Court itself has laid down in Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. The departmental enquiry has to be completed expeditiously. The case is of such a nature which cannot brook delay. The Apex Court itself has laid down in Depot Manager A.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya (supra) that disciplinary proceedings cannot be and should not be stayed as a matter of course. All the relevant factors for and against should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down. 4. Under the circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. 5. It goes without saying that scope of departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the offices and efficiency in the public services. Therefore, the proceedings should be conducted and proceeded as expeditiously as possible. The Supreme Court has thus thought it proper not to lay down the guidelines as "inflexible rules", as to when the departmental inquiry may or may not be stayed pending criminal trial against the delinquent officer. I do not find that departmental inquiry, in any way, is going to prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending criminal case. The enquiry officer is thus justified in not staying the enquiry which involves determination of the question connected with effective administration of justice by not handing over the charge, not following orders, not keeping articles in identifiable condition. 6. With respect to the second prayer made by the petitioner that he should be supplied the certified copies of the relevant documents, it is suffice to observe that inquiry officer has to supply necessary relevant documents. However, if enquiry officer finds that under such a guise unrequired documents are being asked to thwart expeditious course of inquiry and undue obstacle is being placed by the petitioner, then in accordance with the law the enquiry has to proceed further. However, expeditiously, inquiry was started in 1997 and it is 2002 already. Enquiry Officer is expected to be fair in holding the enquiry and it has to be held consistently in accordance with the principle of natural justice. 7. However, expeditiously, inquiry was started in 1997 and it is 2002 already. Enquiry Officer is expected to be fair in holding the enquiry and it has to be held consistently in accordance with the principle of natural justice. 7. The prayer of the petitioner to engage a counsel has been rightly rejected by the enquiry officer, to be represented by a lawyer in Departmental Enquiry is not absolute right, no such intricate question is involved which may require assistance of a lawyer. Petitioner was holding the responsible post of Nazir in Court. He cannot be said to be layman not able to understand charge nor he is such a person who cannot defend himself. Such a prayer appears to be as an outcome of petitioner's attempt to delay Departmental Enquiry till eternity. Departmental Enquiry is directed to be completed preferably in six months. Petitioner is directed to co-operate in inquiry. 8. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.